Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: Comparing reviewers' to authors' assessments

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Lo, Carson Ka Lok ^a   Mertz, Dominik ^b,c   Loeb, Mark ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Inter rater; Newcastle Ottawa Scale; Observational studies; Reliability; Risk of bias; Validity

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HUMAN; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PEER REVIEW; QUESTIONNAIRE; REPRODUCIBILITY; WRITING;

AUTHORSHIP; COHORT STUDIES; HUMANS; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY AS TOPIC; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PEER REVIEW; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 84898490474     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-45     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]., Higgins JPT, Green S, [ http://www.cochrane-handbook.org ]
2. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Wells G, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P, 2013 http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical- epidemiology/oxford.asp
3. Testing the Newcastle Ottawa Scale showed low reliability between individual reviewers. Hartling L, Milne A, Hamm MP, Vandermeer B, Ansari M, Tsertsvadze A, Dryden DM, J Clin Epidemiol 2013 66 982 993 10.1016/j.jclinepi. 2013.03.003 23683848
4. Inter-rater and test-retest reliability of quality assessments by novice student raters using the Jadad and Newcastle-Ottawa Scales. Oremus M, Oremus C, Hall GBC, McKinnon MC, ECT & Cognition Systematic Review Team, BMJ Open 2012 2 001368 22855629
5. An observational study found that authors of randomized controlled trials frequently use concealment of randomization and blinding, despite the failure to report these methods. Devereaux PJ, Choi PTL, El-Dika S, Bhandari M, Montori VM, Schünemann HJ, Garg AX, Busse JW, Heels-Ansdell D, Ghali WA, Manns BJ, Guyatt GH, J Clin Epidemiol 2004 57 1232 1236 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.03.017 15617948 (Pubitemid 40023142)
6. Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. Soares HP, Daniels S, Kumar A, Clarke M, Scott C, Swann S, Djulbegovic B, BMJ 2004 328 22 24 10.1136/bmj.328.7430.22 14703540 (Pubitemid 38067738)
7. Populations at risk for severe or complicated influenza illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Mertz D, Kim TH, Johnstone J, Lam P-P, Science M, Kuster SP, Fadel SA, Tran D, Fernandez E, Bhatnagar N, Loeb M, BMJ 2012 347 5061
8. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Landis JR, Koch GG, Biometrics 1977 33 159 174 10.2307/2529310 843571 (Pubitemid 8054849)
9. Comparison of classification accuracy using Cohen's Weighted Kappa. Ben-David A, Expert Syst Appl 2008 34 825 832 10.1016/j.eswa.2006.10.022 (Pubitemid 350117456)
10. Sixteen-slice spiral CT versus MR imaging for the assessment of left ventricular function in acute myocardial infarction. Mahnken A, Koos R, Katoh M, Spuentrup E, Busch P, Wildberger J, Kühl H, Günther R, Eur Radiol 2005 15 714 720 10.1007/s00330-004-2592-x 15682266
11. Evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS): an assessment tool for evaluating the quality of non-randomized studies. Wells G, Brodsky L, O'Connell D, Shea B, Henry D, Mayank S, Tugwell P, XI Cochrane Colloquium: Evidence, Health Care and Culture Barcelona, Spain 2003 http://www.citeulike.org/user/ SRCMethodsLibrary/article/12919189
12. Content analysis: what are they talking about? Strijbos J-W, Martens RL, Prins FJ, Jochems WMG, Comput Educ 2006 46 29 48 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.002 (Pubitemid 41562936)