Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS)

BMJ Open

Volumn 6, Issue 12, 2016, Pages

  Downes, Martin J ^a   Brennan, Marnie L ^b   Williams, Hywel C ^b   Dean, Rachel S ^b  

^a GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Critical appraisal; Cross sectional studies; Delphi; Evidence based Healthcare

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DELPHI STUDY; HUMAN; STUDY DESIGN; SYNTHESIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; CONSENSUS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; METHODOLOGY; PROCEDURES; STANDARDS; STATISTICAL BIAS;

BIAS; CLINICAL DECISION-MAKING; CONSENSUS; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DELPHI TECHNIQUE; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 85004045202     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011458     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Cockcroft PD, Holmes MA. Handbook of evidence-based veterinary medicine. 1st edn. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2003
2. McColl A, Smith H, White P, et al. General practitioner's perceptions of the route to evidence based medicine: a questionnaire survey. BMJ 1998; 316: 361-5
3. Rosenberg W, Donald A. Evidence based medicine: an approach to clinical problem-solving. BMJ 1995; 310: 1122-6
4. Silagy CA, Stead LF, Lancaster T. Use of systematic reviews in clinical practice guidelines: case study of smoking cessation. BMJ 2001; 323: 833-6
5. Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley Online Library, 2008
6. Bennett KJ, Sackett DL, Haynes RB, et al. A controlled trial of teaching critical appraisal of the clinical literature to medical students. JAMA 1987; 257: 2451-4
7. Mogford E, Gould L, Devoght A. Teaching critical health literacy in the US as a means to action on the social determinants of health. Health Promot Int 2011; 26: 4-13
8. Parkes J, Hyde C, Deeks J, et al. Teaching critical appraisal skills in health care settings. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001; (3): CD001270
9. Sackett DL. Teaching critical appraisal. J Gen Intern Med 1990; 5: 272
10. Ho PM, Peterson PN, Masoudi FA. Evaluating the evidence: is there a rigid hierarchy?. Circulation 2008; 118: 1675-84
11. Dohoo IR, Martin SW, Stryhn H. Veterinary epidemiologic research. Charlottetown, Canada: Ver Books, 2009
12. Katrak P, Bialocerkowski AE, Massy-Westropp N, et al. A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools. BMC Med Res Methodol 2004; 4: 22
13. Sanderson S, Tatt ID, Higgins JP. Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. Int J Epidemiol 2007; 36: 666-76
14. Sterne JAC HJ, Reeves BC. on behalf of the Development Group for ROBINS-I. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in nonrandomised studies of interventions. 2016. BMJ 2016; 355: i4919
15. Berra S, Elorza-Ricart JM, Estrada MD, et al. [A tool (corrected) for the critical appraisal of epidemiological cross-sectional studies]. Gac Sanit 2008; 22: 492-7
16. Chalmers TC, Smith H, Jr., Blackburn B, et al. A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Control Clin Trials 1981; 2: 31-49
17. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Bull World Health Organ 2007; 85: 867-72
18. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-Analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet 1999; 354: 1896-900
19. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, et al. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 834-40
20. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007; 7: 10
21. BestBETs. BETs CAWorksheets. Secondary BETs CAWorksheets. 2009. http://bestbets.org/links/BET-CA-worksheets.php
22. Crombie I. The pocket guide to critical appraisal. Annotated edn. Wiley-Blackwell. 1 edn. London, UK: BMJ Publishing Group, 1996
23. Fowkes FGR, Fulton PM. Critical-Appraisal of published research- introductory guidelines. BMJ 1991; 302: 1136-40
24. Genaidy AM, Lemasters GK, Lockey J, et al. An epidemiological appraisal instrument-A tool for evaluation of epidemiological studies. Ergonomics 2007; 50: 920-60
25. Hanke BA, Motschall E, Türp JC. Association between orthopedic and dental findings: what level of evidence is available?. J Orofac Orthop 2007; 68: 91-107
26. Health Evidence Bulletin. Questions to assist with the critical appraisal of an observational study eg cohort, case-control, crosssectional, 2004. http://hebw.cf.ac.uk/projectmethod/appendix8.htm
27. Rothman K. Chapter 5: Bias in study design. In: Epidemiology: an introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002
28. Wong WC, Cheung CS, Hart GJ. Development of a quality assessment tool for systematic reviews of observational studies (QATSO) of HIV prevalence in men having sex with men and associated risk behaviours. Emerg Themes Epidemiol 2008; 5: 23
29. Joanna Briggs Institute. Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers manual 2014 Edition. 2014. http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/sumari/ReviewersManual-2014.pdf
30. Downes MJ, Dean RS, Stavisky JH, et al. Methods used to estimate the size of the owned cat and dog population: a systematic review. BMC Vet Res 2013; 9: 121
31. Hsu C-C, Sandford BA. The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Pract Assess Res Eval 2007; 12: 1-8
32. Okoli C, Pawlowski SD. The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Inform Manage 2004; 42: 15-29
33. Glasziou P, Vandenbroucke JP, Chalmers I. Assessing the quality of research. BMJ 2004; 328: 39-41
34. Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001; 323: 42-6
35. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-Analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-Analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000; 283: 2008-12
36. Wells G, Shea B, O'connell D, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-Analyses. Secondary The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-Analyses. 2000. http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/rtamblyn/Readings/The%20Newcastle%20-%20Scale%20for%20assessing %20the%20quality%20of%20nonrandomised%20studies%20in%20meta-Analyses.pdf
37. Crowe M, Sheppard L. A review of critical appraisal tools show they lack rigor. Alternative tool structure is proposed. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 79-89
38. Fink A, Kosecoff J, Chassin M, et al. Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. Am J Public Health 1984; 74: 979-83
39. Greenland S, O'Rourke K. On the bias produced by quality scores in meta-Analysis, and a hierarchical view of proposed solutions. Biostat 2001; 2: 463-71
40. Mckenna HP. The Delphi technique-A worthwhile research approach for nursing. J Adv Nurs 1994; 19: 1221-5
41. Linstone HA, Turoff M. The Delphi method: techniques and applications. MA: Addison-Wesley Reading, 1975
42. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Br Med J 2011; 343: d5928
43. Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, et al. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-Analysis. JAMA 1999; 282: 1054-60