Quality assessment in systematic reviews: The importance of choosing the right tools

  • Reza Negarande Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Raziyeh Beykmirza Mail Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Keywords:
quality assessment; systematic reviews

Abstract

The validity of the findings of the Systematic Review (SR) depends on the methodological quality of the individual studies in which they are included.  Therefore, evaluating the validity of the included studies is an integral component of a systematic review (1).  Bias or systematic error either exaggerates or underestimates the 'true' effect of an intervention or exposure. Typically, four sources for systematic error, including Selection bias, Performance bias, Attrition bias, and Detection bias, are considered in this assessment.

References

1. Whiting P, Wolff R, Mallett S, Simera I, Savović J. A proposed framework for developing quality assessment tools. Systematic reviews. 2017;6(1):204.
2. Reitsma J, Rutjes A, Whiting P, Vlassov V, Leeflang M, Deeks J. Assessing methodological quality. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy version. 2009;1(0):1-28.
3. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions [Internet]. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. [accessed 23 Mar 2011]. [Available from:
www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
4. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias). Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2011;64(4):407-15.
5. Ali NB, Usman M. Reliability of search in systematic reviews: Towards a quality assessment framework for the automated-search strategy. Information and Software Technology. 2018;99:133-47.
6. Whitehead A. Meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials: John Wiley & Sons; 2002.
7. Seehra J, Pandis N, Koletsi D, Fleming PS. Use of quality assessment tools in systematic reviews was varied and inconsistent. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2016;69:179-84. e5.
8. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. Jama. 1996;276(8):637-9.
9. Altman DG, Simera I, Hoey J, Moher D, Schulz K. EQUATOR: reporting guidelines for health research. Open Medicine. 2008;2(2):e49.
10. Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research [Available from: https://www.equator-network.org/.
Published
2020-07-01
How to Cite
1.
Negarande R, Beykmirza R. Quality assessment in systematic reviews: The importance of choosing the right tools. NPT. 7(3):161-162.
Section
Editorial(s)