- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- No quality assessment undertaken or reported
- Quality assessment of observational studies is not commonplace in systematic reviews
Ref ID | 592 |
First Author | C. Mallen |
Journal | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY |
Year Of Publishing | 2006 |
URL | https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(06)00026-6/fulltext |
Keywords |
Observational studies Risk of bias General medical |
Problem(s) |
Inclusion of observational / non-randomised studies No quality assessment undertaken or reported |
Number of systematic reviews included | 32 |
Summary of Findings | Six (22%) of the 1999–2000 articles described quality assessment of original studies, compared with 39 (50%) of articles published in 2003–2004. Ten different quality assessment tools were identified in the later cohort indicating a lack of consensus in appropriate critical appraisal of observational studies. |
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | Not Applicable |
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | Yes |