Methods of Quality Evaluation of Medical Literatures_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

CHEN Zexin , LIU Hui , PAN Yifeng ,  YU Yunxian

Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China;

Corresponding author：

YU Yunxian, Email: yunxianyu@zju.edu.cn

Keywords：

Literature quality; Evaluation method; Systematic review

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.20110207

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

With the flourishing career of scientific research, the number of medical literature is in the explosion of growth. According to the statistics revealed by the Royal Society in March 2011, it showed that the proportion of published literature in China increased from 4.4% at the beginning of this century to 12.2%, and leaped into the second rank of the world. But the citations lagged behind the growth in number. In addition, the quality of medical literature relates to the reliability of results. Therefore, how to evaluate and improve the quality of medical literature is important. This paper will present some evaluation methods of credible medical literatures.

Citation： CHEN Zexin,LIU Hui,PAN Yifeng,YU Yunxian. Methods of Quality Evaluation of Medical Literatures. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2011, 11(11): 1229-1236. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.20110207 Copy

1.	2 Egger M, Schneider M, Davey SG. Spurious precision? Meta-analysis of observational studies. BMJ , 1998, 316(7125): 140-144.
2.	3 Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al . Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?. Control Clin Trials , 1996, 17(1): 1-12.
3.	4 Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA, 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(12): 1235-1241.
4.	7 Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al . [CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (Chinese version)]. Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Xue Bao , 2010, 8(8): 701-741.
5.	8 Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med , 2010, 152(11): 726-732.
6.	10 Chalmers TC, Smith HJ, Blackburn B, et al . A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Control Clin Trials , 1981, 2(1): 31-49.
7.	11 Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D'Amico R, et al . Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess , 2003, 7(27): 1-173.
8.	12 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(3): 666-676.
9.	13 Shamliyan T, Kane RL, Dickinson S. A systematic review of tools used to assess the quality of observational studies that examine incidence or prevalence and risk factors for diseases. J Clin Epidemiol , 2010, 63(10): 1061-1070.
10.	14 Wells G, Shea B, O'Connell D, et al . The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2010. Available from: URL: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp.
11.	15 Wells G, Shea B, O'Connell D, et al . NEWCASTLE - OTTAWA QUALITY ASSESSMENT SCALE --COHORT STUDIES. 2010. Available from: URL: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp.
12.	16 Wells G, Shea B, O'Connell D, et al . NEWCASTLE - OTTAWA QUALITY ASSESSMENT SCALE --CASE CONTROL STUDIES. 2010. Available from: URL: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp.
13.	17 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(6): 377-384.
14.	18 Reisch JS, Tyson JE, Mize SG. Aid to the evaluation of therapeutic studies. Pediatrics , 1989, 84(5): 815-827.
15.	20 Cowley DE. Prostheses for primary total hip replacement. A critical appraisal of the literature. Int J Technol Assess Health Care , 1995, 11(4): 770-778.
16.	刘建平. 非随机研究的系统评价方法（一）. 中国循证医学, 2001, 1(4): 239-243.
17.	何俐, 刘鸣, 张鸣明, 等. 中国循证医学/Cochrane中心数据库手检及录入问题解析. 华西医学, 2000, 15(4): 390-391.
18.	Systems to Rate the Strength of Scientific Evidence. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment: Number 47. Available from: URL: http://archive.ahrq.gov/clinic/epcsums/strengthsum.htm.
19.	郭新峰, 温泽淮, 老鹰荣, 等. 临床试验质量评价工具及其应用. 中国循证医学杂志, 2004, 4(7): 484-487.
20.	Thomas H. QUALITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR QUANTITATIVE STUDIES. Effective Public Health Practice Project. McMaster University, Toronto. 2003. Available from: URL: http://www.ephpp.ca/tools.html.

1. 2 Egger M, Schneider M, Davey SG. Spurious precision? Meta-analysis of observational studies. BMJ , 1998, 316(7125): 140-144.
2. 3 Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al . Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?. Control Clin Trials , 1996, 17(1): 1-12.
3. 4 Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA, 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(12): 1235-1241.
4. 7 Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al . [CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (Chinese version)]. Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Xue Bao , 2010, 8(8): 701-741.
5. 8 Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med , 2010, 152(11): 726-732.
6. 10 Chalmers TC, Smith HJ, Blackburn B, et al . A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Control Clin Trials , 1981, 2(1): 31-49.
7. 11 Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D'Amico R, et al . Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess , 2003, 7(27): 1-173.
8. 12 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(3): 666-676.
9. 13 Shamliyan T, Kane RL, Dickinson S. A systematic review of tools used to assess the quality of observational studies that examine incidence or prevalence and risk factors for diseases. J Clin Epidemiol , 2010, 63(10): 1061-1070.
10. 14 Wells G, Shea B, O'Connell D, et al . The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2010. Available from: URL: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp.
11. 15 Wells G, Shea B, O'Connell D, et al . NEWCASTLE - OTTAWA QUALITY ASSESSMENT SCALE --COHORT STUDIES. 2010. Available from: URL: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp.
12. 16 Wells G, Shea B, O'Connell D, et al . NEWCASTLE - OTTAWA QUALITY ASSESSMENT SCALE --CASE CONTROL STUDIES. 2010. Available from: URL: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp.
13. 17 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(6): 377-384.
14. 18 Reisch JS, Tyson JE, Mize SG. Aid to the evaluation of therapeutic studies. Pediatrics , 1989, 84(5): 815-827.
15. 20 Cowley DE. Prostheses for primary total hip replacement. A critical appraisal of the literature. Int J Technol Assess Health Care , 1995, 11(4): 770-778.
16. 刘建平. 非随机研究的系统评价方法（一）. 中国循证医学, 2001, 1(4): 239-243.
17. 何俐, 刘鸣, 张鸣明, 等. 中国循证医学/Cochrane中心数据库手检及录入问题解析. 华西医学, 2000, 15(4): 390-391.
18. Systems to Rate the Strength of Scientific Evidence. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment: Number 47. Available from: URL: http://archive.ahrq.gov/clinic/epcsums/strengthsum.htm.
19. 郭新峰, 温泽淮, 老鹰荣, 等. 临床试验质量评价工具及其应用. 中国循证医学杂志, 2004, 4(7): 484-487.
20. Thomas H. QUALITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR QUANTITATIVE STUDIES. Effective Public Health Practice Project. McMaster University, Toronto. 2003. Available from: URL: http://www.ephpp.ca/tools.html.

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Methods of Quality Evaluation of Medical Literatures

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content