The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta‐analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review

Zeng, Xian‐Tao; Zhang, Yonggang; Kwong, Joey S.W.; Zhang, Chao; Li, Sheng; Sun, Feng; Niu, Yu‐Ming; Du, Liqing

doi:10.1111/jebm.12141

Cited by 1,418 publications

(887 citation statements)

References 85 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

872

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…20,[62][63][64][65][66] Some tools are specific to different study designs whereas others can be used across a range of designs. Some have been developed to reflect nuances specific to a clinical area or field of research.…”

Section: Tools For Assessing Risk Of Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the Risk of Bias of Individual Studies in Systematic Reviews of Health Care Interventions

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The information in this report is intended to help health care decisionmakers-patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policy makers, among others-make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information (i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients).This report is made available to the public under the terms of a licensing agreement between the author and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. This report may be used and reprinted without permission except those copyrighted materials that are clearly noted in the report. Further reproduction of those copyrighted materials is prohibited without the express permission of copyright holders. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of any derivative products that may be developed from this report, such as clinical practice guidelines, other quality enhancement tools, or reimbursement or coverage policies may not be stated or implied. Persons using assistive technology may not be able to fully access information in this report. For assistance, contact epc@ahrq.hhs.gov. PrefaceThe Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), through its Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs), sponsors the development of evidence reports and technology assessments to assist public-and private-sector organizations in their efforts to improve the quality of health care in the United States. The reports and assessments provide organizations with comprehensive, science-based information on common, costly medical conditions and new health care technologies and strategies. The EPCs systematically review the relevant scientific literature on topics assigned to them by AHRQ and conduct additional analyses when appropriate prior to developing their reports and assessments.Strong methodological approaches to systematic review improve the transparency, consistency, and scientific rigor of these reports. Through a collaborative effort of the Effective Health Care (EHC) Program, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the EHC Program Scientific Resource Center, and the AHRQ Evidence-based Practice Centers have developed a Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. This Guide presents issues key to the development of Systematic Reviews and describes recommended approaches for addressing difficult, frequently encountered methodological issues.The Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews is a living document, and will be updated as further empiric evidence develops and our understanding of better methods improves.If you have comments on this Methods Guide paper, they may be sent by mail to the Task Order Officer named below at: Agency for Healthcare Research a...

show abstract

Section: Tools For Assessing Risk Of Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the Risk of Bias of Individual Studies in Systematic Reviews of Health Care Interventions

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Quality Assessment of included studies was performed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program Cohort Study Checklist (Zeng et al, 2015). A systematic approach based on 12 specific criteria was used, which were as follows: (a) Study issue is clearly focused, (b) Cohort is recruited in an acceptable way, (c) Exposure is accurately measured, (d) Outcome is accurately measured, (e) Confounding factors are addressed, (f) Follow-up is long and complete, (g) Results are clear, (h) Results are precise, (i) Results are credible, (j) Results can be applied to the local population, (k) Results fit with available evidence, and (l) There are important clinical implications.…”

Section: Quality Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association Between Periodontal Disease and Erectile Dysfunction: A Systematic Review

Kellesarian

Malignaggi

et al. 2016

Am J Mens Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A limited number of studies have reported an association between erectile dysfunction (ED) and chronic periodontitis (CP). The aim of the present study is to assess the association between CP and ED through a systematic review of published literature. To address the focused question, "Is there a relationship between ED and CP?" indexed databases were searched till December 2015 using various key words "erectile dysfunction," "periodontal disease," "periodontitis," "dental infection," and "impotence." Letters to the editor, commentaries, historic reviews, and experimental studies were excluded. The pattern of the present systematic review was customized to primarily summarize the pertinent data. Nine studies were included. Seven studies had a cross-sectional design and two studies were randomized control trials. The number of study participants ranged between 53 and 513,258 individuals with age ranging between 20 years and 85 years (median age ranging between 34.9 ± 4.9 years and 50.9 ± 16.6 years). In all studies, a positive relationship between CP and ED was reported. In four studies, odds ratio were reported, ranging between 1.53 and 3.35. From the literature reviewed, there seems to be a positive association between ED and CP; however, further well-designed controlled clinical trials are needed in this regard. It is emphasized that physicians should refer patients with ED to oral health care providers for a comprehensive oral evaluation and treatment.

show abstract

“…Many studies have previously investigated the association between TNF-α G-308A polymorphism and MI risk, but have yielded inconsistent results. Meta-analysis is a useful method to combine various single studies to obtain a larger sample size (Bax et al, 2007;Zeng et al, 2015a), and has been widely used in genetic association studies (Leng et al, 2013;Mao et al, 2013;Yan et al, 2014;Suo et al, 2015;Zeng et al, 2015b). In the present study, we performed a metaanalysis to evaluate the association between TNF-α G-308A polymorphism and MI risk.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association between TNF-α rs1800629 polymorphism and the risk of myocardial infarction: A meta-analysis

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) G-308A polymorphism has been suggested to be a susceptibility factor for myocardial infarction (MI). However, differing results from various studies have led to controversial conclusions. Hence, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the association between TNF-α G-308A polymorphism and MI. Reported studies published before March 30, 2015 were included and analyzed from the PubMed and Embase databases. Study selection and data extraction were carried out independently by two authors. The odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to evaluate the association between the selected variables using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis v2.2 software. In total, 12 publications with 13 case-control studies consisting of 6037 cases and 7262 controls However, when subgroup analysis was performed according to the stages of MI, results indicated that there was a significant association between TNF-α G-308A polymorphism and the risk of acute MI. Other subgroup analyses revealed no significant associations. Current evidence suggests that TNF-α G-308A polymorphism may be associated with increased risk for acute MI.

show abstract

The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta‐analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review

Cited by 1,418 publications

References 85 publications

Assessing the Risk of Bias of Individual Studies in Systematic Reviews of Health Care Interventions

Assessing the Risk of Bias of Individual Studies in Systematic Reviews of Health Care Interventions

Association Between Periodontal Disease and Erectile Dysfunction: A Systematic Review

Association between TNF-α rs1800629 polymorphism and the risk of myocardial infarction: A meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About