Q-Coh: A tool to screen the methodological quality of cohort studies in systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Do Functional Movement Screen (FMS) composite scores predict subsequent injury? A systematic review with meta-analysis

“…This differs from the conventional application of diagnostic accuracy, where the reference and index test results are administered in close temporal proximity, and there is no need to control for potential confounding effects that arise when the index test (FMS) and reference ‘test’ (injury event) are separated by one or more sporting seasons. Therefore, rather than applying a diagnostic accuracy framework such as QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies),49 we appraised all studies on the basis of the strength of association between FMS and subsequent injury using Q-Coh,25 an appraisal tool specifically designed to assess risk of bias in prospective observational cohort studies.…”

“…An assessment of methodological quality for the selected studies was undertaken using the ‘Quality of Cohort Studies’ (Q-Coh), a tool with acceptable validity and reliability specifically developed to assess risk of bias in prospective cohort studies 25. Risk of bias was assessed across six domains: sample representativeness, comparability of groups, exposure measure, maintenance of comparability, outcome measures and attrition.…”

“…Disagreements in the assessment of Q-Coh items between reviewers were resolved by consensus, and a third reviewer (AGS) was available to make a final decision, if necessary. Descriptors for the overall quality of each article were based on the study by Jarde et al 25 and defined as ‘good’ when ≤1 domain was not satisfied, ‘acceptable’ if 2 domains were not satisfied and ‘low’ when >2 domains were not satisfied.…”

“…*In the case of only two or three studies, ‘consistency’ required agreement between all studies.†Studies rated as having ‘good’ or ‘acceptable’ quality using the Quality of Cohort Studies risk of bias tool25 were combined into one category operationally defined as ‘high quality’ for the purpose of applying these criteria.…”

The impact of receiving a diagnosis of Non-Epileptic Attack Disorder (NEAD): A systematic review

“…Quality assessment tools have typically been developed to assess the quality of randomised controlled trials and other specific research designs [49,50], and there is no consensus on which is the best tool [42]. For these reasons and the specific potential quality issues in this area of research, namely varying diagnostic methods, a domain-based quality evaluation tool was specifically developed for this review.…”