Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS)

Downes, Martin; Brennan, Marnie L.; Williams, Hywel C; Dean, Rachel

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011458

Cited by 1,430 publications

(1,228 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

1,182

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To critically appraise bias in the study design employed in PREM validity and reliability testing, the Appraisal tool for Cross‐Sectional Studies (AXIS) was used. This is a 20‐item appraisal tool developed in response to the increase in cross‐sectional studies informing evidence‐based medicine and the consequent importance of ensuring that these studies are of high quality and low bias . The purpose of employing the AXIS tool in the present systematic review was to ensure that the results of PREM validity and reliability testing were supported by appropriate study designs and thus able to be interpreted as a robust representation of how valid and/or reliable a PREM is.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A systematic review of the validity and reliability of patient‐reported experience measures

Bull

Byrnes

Hettiarachchi

et al. 2019

Health Services Research

182

184

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To identify patient‐reported experience measures (PREMs), assess their validity and reliability, and assess any bias in the study design of PREM validity and reliability testing. Data Sources/Study Setting Articles reporting on PREM development and testing sourced from MEDLINE, CINAHL and Scopus databases up to March 13, 2018. Study Design Systematic review. Data Collection/Extraction Methods Critical appraisal of PREM study design was undertaken using the Appraisal tool for Cross‐Sectional Studies (AXIS). Critical appraisal of PREM validity and reliability was undertaken using a revised version of the COSMIN checklist. Principal Findings Eighty‐eight PREMs were identified, spanning across four main health care contexts. PREM validity and reliability was supported by appropriate study designs. Internal consistency (n = 58, 65.2 percent), structural validity (n = 49, 55.1 percent), and content validity (n = 34, 38.2 percent) were the most frequently reported validity and reliability tests. Conclusions Careful consideration should be given when selecting PREMs, particularly as seven of the 10 validity and reliability criteria were not undertaken in ≥50 percent of the PREMs. Testing PREM responsiveness should be prioritized for the application of PREMs where the end user is measuring change over time. Assessing measurement error/agreement of PREMs is important to understand the clinical relevancy of PREM scores used in a health care evaluation capacity.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of the validity and reliability of patient‐reported experience measures

Bull

Byrnes

Hettiarachchi

et al. 2019

Health Services Research

182

184

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The checklist will be minimally modified to integrate the explicit assessment of validity proposed in Sandelowski and Barroso [21]. Quantitative critical appraisal will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale [22] for cohort and case-control studies, or the Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS) [23]. Rather than a separate risk of bias assessment for qualitative papers, reflexivity, trustworthiness and validity will be an integrated element of quality assessment.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What happens for informal caregivers during transition to increased levels of care for the person with dementia? A systematic review protocol

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDementia is a globally prevalent disease that requires ongoing and increasing levels of care, often provided in the first instance by informal caregivers. Supporting transitions in informal caregiving in dementia is a pertinent issue for caregivers, care providers and governments. There is no existing systematic review that seeks to identify and map the body of literature regarding the review question: ‘What happens for informal caregivers during transition to increased levels of care for the person with dementia?’Methods/designASSIA, CINAHL+, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SCIE, Social Service Abstracts and Web of Science will be systematically searched. Specialist dementia research libraries will be contacted. Reviews identified as relevant during the search process, their reference lists, and reference lists of accepted papers will be hand-searched. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies that seek to represent the experiences of, or examine the impact upon, informal caregivers during transition to increased formal care for the person with dementia will be eligible for inclusion. Synthesis will be segregated into qualitative and quantitative papers. Findings will be summarised, and the review will be prepared for publication.DiscussionThe review will seek to identify potentially vulnerable groups in need of support and as such, inform the practice of those offering support. It will also inform future research by highlighting areas in which current literature is insubstantial.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42017067248Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-018-0755-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…We found it difficult to report a diagnostic status of the quality of the studies. Studies, using Delphi panel, suggest that quality numerical scales can be problematic because the outputs from assessment checklists are not linear and it is also difficult to sum up or weight making them unpredictable at assessing study quality [33,35]. We synthesized and presented the findings in a narrative way, following thematic analysis.…”

Section: Assessment Of Risk Of Bias and Quality Of The Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…), negative (-) rating, or a rating of (0) when there was no information regarding the relevant criteria. For the cross-sectional survey and qualitative studies, we administered the Assess the Qquality of Cross-sectional Studies tools [33] and the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool for qualitative studies [34]. The major data extracted are presented in tables.…”

Section: Assessment Of Risk Of Bias and Quality Of The Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Definition and Validity of the Construct “Problematic Khat Use”: A Systematic Review

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Problematic khat use, not khat use per se, is a public health and social concern for the public, researchers, and policy makers. However, the construct problematic khat use is not well-established and not fully recognized in the modern definition of substance use disorders including Diagnostic Statistic Manual (DSM-5) and international classification of diseases (ICD-10), although DSM-5 included it in the “stimulant use disorder” category. Existing scoping reviews have focused on khat use, which could not allow the differentiation of khat use from problematic khat use. Thus, the aim of this systematic review was to define and validate the construct problematic khat use. Methods: This systematic review was reported following the PRISMA guidelines. We searched all English language studies without publication date restriction from 5 databases; PubMed, EMBASE, psychINFO, SocINDEX, and Google scholar. All studies that defined, explored, evaluated, or measured the construct problematic khat use were included. Adapted data extraction tool and criteria for quality evaluation were employed. We presented the results in tables and thematic synthesis of the major findings. Result: Overall, 30 qualitative and cross-sectional design studies were included. Associated harms with khat use, an increased amount used, increased frequency of use, and withdrawal experiences were indicators of problematic khat use. Using khat on an average of 3 or more times per week and using other psychoactive substances during and after khat use were frequently used to define problematic khat use. The most frequently reported withdrawal symptoms were depressed mood, irritability, fatigue, lack of motivation, increased sleep, and appetite. The existing measures (severity of dependence scale and DSM-5) of problematic khat use had psychometrically acceptable properties in terms of construct, criterion, and convergent validity, but they are poor in terms of other domains of validity including content, conceptual, and semantic validity. Conclusion: Problematic khat use constitutes, but is not limited to, harms, increased use over time, and frequent engagement in other psychoactive substances misuse. Khat use is different from problematic khat use since it is occasional and used for prayer, social, and functional reasons. Strong empirical studies that could establish thresholds for patterns of problematic khat use and a culturally suitable problematic khat use measures that follows a bottom-up approach of scale development are warranted.

show abstract

Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS)

Cited by 1,430 publications

References 36 publications

A systematic review of the validity and reliability of patient‐reported experience measures

A systematic review of the validity and reliability of patient‐reported experience measures

What happens for informal caregivers during transition to increased levels of care for the person with dementia? A systematic review protocol

Definition and Validity of the Construct “Problematic Khat Use”: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About