Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better?

Abstract

Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment is an important step before study initiation usage. Therefore, accurately judging study type is the first priority, and the choosing proper tool is also important. In this review, we introduced methodological quality assessment tools for randomized controlled trial (including individual and cluster), animal study, non-randomized interventional studies (including follow-up study, controlled before-and-after study, before-after/ pre-post study, uncontrolled longitudinal study, interrupted time series study), cohort study, case-control study, cross-sectional study (including analytical and descriptive), observational case series and case reports, comparative effectiveness research, diagnostic study, health economic evaluation, prediction study (including predictor finding study, prediction model impact study, prognostic prediction model study), qualitative study, outcome measurement instruments (including patient -reported outcome measure development, content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, cross-cultural validity/ measurement invariance, reliability, measurement error, criterion validity, hypotheses testing for construct validity, and responsiveness), systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline. The readers of our review can distinguish the types of medical studies and choose appropriate tools. In one word, comprehensively mastering relevant knowledge and implementing more practices are basic requirements for correctly assessing the methodological quality.

The mental health of healthcare workers in the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review

“…In other words, the total score would be the number of affirmative responses. To qualitative evaluation of the final scores, scores higher than 12 deemed good, those lower than 9 considered as the week, and those fell in the range of 9 to 12 represent fair studies [17].…”

Chemoprophylaxis, diagnosis, treatments, and discharge management of COVID-19: An evidence-based clinical practice guideline (updated version)

“…The risk of bias or quality assessment was based on the international evaluation standards of the corresponding literature, ROB 2.0 for randomized controlled trial (RCT); QUADAS-2 for diagnostic accuracy study; ROBINS-I for non-randomized comparative intervention studies [5]. Before the literature search, outcomes of treatment were ranked by the guideline panel classifying their importance as critical, important, and less important according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach [6].…”

A systematic review of the physical activity levels of acutely ill older adults in Hospital At Home settings: an under-researched field

“…The process of data extraction was performed using a custom template which was developed and piloted to extract: (1) data relevant to the research question, and (2) data required to perform a quality appraisal and risk of bias assessment using the Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS) [24] (Data Extraction Table: Online Resource 2, AXIS Appraisal: Online Resource 3). The AXIS tool comprises 20 questions and considers study design and reporting quality in addition to the risk of bias when appraising research studies [25]. The data extracted were spot-checked for accuracy by the review team (DS, UA, MG or GE).…”