Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice
Volume 4, Issue 1 , Pages 24-31 , March 2004

Are Quality Assessment Methods Any Good?

References 

  1. Greenland S. Invited commentary: A critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods. Amer J Epi. 1994;140:290–296
  2. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJM, Gavaghan DJ, et al.  Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?. Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1–12
  3. Light RJ, Pillemer DB. Summing up: the science of reviewing research. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press; 1984;
  4. Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials. In:  Egger M,  Smith GD,  Altman DG editor. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Books; 2001;
  5. Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52:377–384
  6. Emerson JD, Burdick E, Hoaglin DC, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. An empirical study of the possible relation of treatment differences to quality scores in controlled randomized clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1990;11:339–352
  7. Schultz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;273:408–412
  8. AHRQ\. Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence: Summary. AHRQ Pub. No. 02-E015. Washington (DC): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, US Department of Health and Human Services; 2002.
  9. Chalmers TC, Smith H, Blackburn B, Silverman B, Shroeder B, Reitman D. A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Control Clin Trials. 1981;2:31–49
  10. Chalmers I, Adams M, Dickersin K, et al.  A cohort study of summary reports of controlled trials. JAMA. 1990;263:1401–1405
  11. Moher D, Jadad AR, Tugwell P. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: current issues and future directions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1996;12:195–208
  12. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, et al.  Does quality of reports of randomised trials affedt estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?. Lancet. 1998;352:609–613
  13. Verhagen AP, de Vet HCW, de Bie RA, Kessels AGH, Boers M, Bouter LM, et al. The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:1235–1241
  14. Greenland S, O'Rourke K. On the bias produced by quality scores in meta-analysis, and a hierarchical view of proposed solutions. Biostatistics. 2001;2:463–471
  15. Colditz GA, Miller JN, Mosteller F. How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy. I: Medical. Stat Med. 1989;8:441–454
  16. Miller JN, Colditz GA, Mosteller F. How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy. II: Surgical. Stat Med. 1989;8:455–466
  17. Chalmers TC, Celano P, Sacks HS, Smith H. Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. New Engl J Med. 1983;309:1358–1361
  18. Balk EM, Bonis PAL, Moskowitz H, Schmid CH, Ioannidis JPA, Wang C. Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2002;287:2973–2982
  19. Jüni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA. 1999;282:1054–1060

PII: S1532-3382(04)00025-9

doi: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2004.03.002

Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice
Volume 4, Issue 1 , Pages 24-31 , March 2004

Article Tools