No clear choice between Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies to assess methodological quality in cross-sectional studies of health-related quality of life and breast cancer

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 120, Issue , 2020, Pages 94-103

  Moskalewicz, Alexandra ^a   Oremus, Mark ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Appraisal tool for cross sectional studies; Breast cancer; Cross sectional; Health related quality of life; Newcastle Ottawa scale; Quality assessment

Indexed keywords

APPRAISAL TOOL FOR CROSS SECTIONAL STUDIES; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CONCURRENT VALIDITY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; HUMAN; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; MATHEMATICAL AND STATISTICAL PROCEDURES; NEWCASTLE-OTTAWA SCALE; NULL RESULT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; SELECTION BIAS; STATISTICAL BIAS; BREAST TUMOR; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; FEMALE; OBSERVER VARIATION; PSYCHOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY; RESEARCH;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; OBSERVER VARIATION; QUALITY OF LIFE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH;

EID: 85078771649     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.013     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Moher, D., Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med, 151, 2009, 264.
2. Viswanathan, M., Patnode, C.D., Berkman, N.D., Bass, E.B., Chang, S., Hartling, L., et al. Assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews of health care interventions. Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews. 2008, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), Rockville, MD.
3. Sanderson, S., Tatt, I.D., Higgins, J.P.T., Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. Int J Epidemiol 36 (2007), 666–676.
4. Wells, G., Shea, B., O'Connell, D., Peterson, J., The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Available at http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp, 2000. (Accessed 24 June 2018)
5. Alshabanat, A., Zafari, Z., Albanyan, O., Dairi, M., FitzGerald, J.M., Asthma and COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS): a systematic review and meta analysis. PLoS One, 10, 2015, e0136065.
6. Modesti, P.A., Reboldi, G., Cappuccio, F.P., Agyemang, C., Remuzzi, G., Rapi, S., et al. Panethnic differences in blood pressure in Europe: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One, 11, 2016, e0147601.
7. Herzog, R., Álvarez-Pasquin, M.J., Díaz, C., Del Barrio, J.L., Estrada, J.M., Gil, Á., Are healthcare workers’ intentions to vaccinate related to their knowledge, beliefs and attitudes? A systematic review. BMC Public Health, 13, 2013, 154.
8. Downes, M.J., Brennan, M.L., Williams, H.C., Dean, R.S., Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS). BMJ Open, 6, 2016, e011458.
9. Bray, F., Ferlay, J., Soerjomataram, I., Siegel, R.L., Torre, L.A., Jemal, A., Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 68 (2018), 394–424.
10. Bottomley, A., The cancer patient and quality of life. Oncologist 7 (2002), 120–125.
11. Ware, J.E., Sherbourne, C.D., The MOS 36-item short-Form Health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30 (1992), 473–483.
12. Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M.F., Kind, P., Parkin, D., et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 20 (2011), 1727–1736.
13. Wong, J.N., McAuley, E., Trinh, L., Physical activity programming and counseling preferences among cancer survivors: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act, 15, 2018, 48.
14. Koo, T.K., Li, M.Y., A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 15 (2016), 155–163.
15. Akoglu, H., User's guide to correlation coefficients. Turk J Emerg Med 18 (2018), 91–93.
16. Oremus, M., Oremus, C., Hall, G.B.C., McKinnon, M.C., ECT & Cognition Systematic Review Team. Inter-rater and test-retest reliability of quality assessments by novice student raters using the Jadad and Newcastle-Ottawa Scales. BMJ Open, 2, 2012, e001368.
17. Hartling, L., Milne, A., Hamm, M.P., Vandermeer, B., Ansari, M., Tsertsvadze, A., et al. Testing the Newcastle Ottawa Scale showed low reliability between individual reviewers. J Clin Epidemiol 66 (2013), 982–993.
18. Lo, C.K.-L., Mertz, D., Loeb, M., Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: comparing reviewers’ to authors’ assessments. BMC Med Res Methodol, 14, 2014, 45.
19. Losilla, J.-M., Oliveras, I., Marin-Garcia, J.A., Vives, J., Three risk of bias tools lead to opposite conclusions in observational research synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol 101 (2018), 61–72.
20. Wells, G., Brodsky, L., O'Connell, D., Shea, B., Henry, D., Mayank, S., et al. An evaluation of the Newcastle Ottawa Scale: an assessment tool for evaluating the quality of non-randomized studies [abstract]. XI International Cochrane Colloquium Book of Abstracts, 2003.
21. Hootman, J.M., Driban, J.B., Sitler, M.R., Harris, K.P., Cattano, N.M., Reliability and validity of three quality rating instruments for systematic reviews of observational studies. Res Synth Methods 2 (2011), 110–118, 10.1002/jrsm.41.
22. Jarde, A., Losilla, J.-M., Vives, J., Rodrigo, M., Q-Coh: a tool to screen the methodological quality of cohort studies in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Int J Clin Health Psychol 13 (2013), 138–146.
23. Sterne, J.A., Hernán, M.A., Reeves, B.C., Savović, J., Berkman, N.D., Viswanathan, M., et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ, 355, 2016, i4919.
24. Higgins, J.P.T., Green, S., (eds.) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions v5.1.0 [updated March 2011], 2011, The Cochrane Collaboration Available at http://www.handbook.cochrane.org. (Accessed 8 November 2019)