Evaluating the role of quality assessment of primary studies in systematic reviews of cancer practice guidelines

被引：33

作者：

Brouwers M.C. ^{[1
,2
]}

Johnston M.E. ^{[1
,2
]}

Charette M.L. ^{[1
,2
]}

Hanna S.E. ^{[1
]}

Jadad A.R. ^{[3
]}

Browman G.P. ^{[1
,2
,4
]}

机构：

[1] Dept. Clin. Epidemiol. Biostatist., McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

[2] Program in Evidence-based Care, Cancer Care Ontario, Hamilton, Ont.

[3] University of Toronto, University Health Network, Toronto, Ont.

[4] Hamilton Regional Cancer Centre, Hamilton, Ont.

来源：

BMC Medical Research Methodology | / 5卷 / 1期

关键词：

Study Quality; Guideline Development; High Quality Study; High Quality Trial; Study Quality Assessment;

D O I：

10.1186/1471-2288-5-8

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of study quality assessment of primary studies in cancer practice guidelines. Methods: Reliable and valid study quality assessment scales were sought and applied to published reports of trials included in systematic reviews of cancer guidelines. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the relationship between quality scores and pooled odds ratios (OR) for mortality and need for blood transfusion. Results: Results found that that whether trials were classified as high or low quality depended on the scale used to assess them. Although the results of the sensitivity analyses found some variation in the ORs observed, the confidence intervals (CIs) of the pooled effects from each of the analyses of high quality trials overlapped with the CI of the pooled odds of all trials. Quality score was not predictive of pooled ORs studied here. Conclusions: Had sensitivity analyses based on study quality been conducted prospectively, it is highly unlikely that different conclusions would have been found or that different clinical recommendations would have emerged in the guidelines. © 2005 Brouwers et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

引用

共 35 条

[1]

Lohr K.N., Carey T.S., Assessing "best evidence": Issues in grading the quality of studies for systematic reviews, Jt Comm J Qual Improv, 25, pp. 470-479, (1999)

[2]

Clarke M., Oxman A.D., Quality assessment of studies. Cochrane Reviewers Handbook 4.1.2 [updated March 2001]

[3]

Section 6, The Cochrane Library, 2, (2001)

[4]

Moher D., Cook D.J., Jadad A.R., Tugwell P., Moher M., Jones A., Pham B., Klassen T.P., Assessing the quality of reports of randomised trials: Implications for the conduct of meta-analyses, Health Technol Assess, 3, pp. 1-98, (1999)

[5]

West S., King V., Carey T.S., Lohr K.N., McKoy N., Sutton S.F., Lux L., Systems to Rate the Strength of Scientific Evidence, Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 47 (Prepared by the Research Trial Institute - University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under Contrast No. 290-97-0011). AHRQ Publication No. 02-E016, (2002)

[6]

Moher D., Pham B., Jones A., Cook D.J., Jadad A.R., Moher M., Tugwell P., Klassen T.P., Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?, Lancet, 352, pp. 609-613, (1998)

[7]

Schulz K.F., Chalmers I., Hayes R.J., Altman D.G., Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials, JAMA, 273, pp. 408-412, (1995)

[8]

Colditz G.A., Miller J.N., Mosteller F., How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy, Stat Med, 8, pp. 441-466, (1989)

[9]

Ioannidis J.P., Lau J., Can quality of clinical trials and meta-analyses be quantified?, Lancet, 352, pp. 590-591, (1998)

[10]

Greenland S., Quality scores are useless and potentially misleading, Am J Epidemiol, 140, pp. 300-301, (1994)

← 1 2 3 4 →