Volume 20, Issue 1 pp. 185-195
LITERATURE REVIEW

Assessing the quality of studies in meta-research: Review/guidelines on the most important quality assessment tools

Claudio Luchini

Corresponding Author

Claudio Luchini

Department of Diagnostics and Public Health, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy

Correspondence

Claudio Luchini, Department of Diagnostics and Public Health, Section of Pathology, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Piazzale Scuro, 10, 37134 Verona, Italy.

Email: [email protected]

Lee Smith, The Cambridge Centre for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK.

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
Nicola Veronese

Nicola Veronese

National Research Council, Neuroscience Institute, Padova, Italy

Search for more papers by this author
Alessia Nottegar

Alessia Nottegar

Department of Diagnostics, Section of Pathology, San Bortolo Hospital, Vicenza, Italy

Search for more papers by this author
Jae Il Shin

Jae Il Shin

Department of Pediatrics, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Search for more papers by this author
Giovanni Gentile

Giovanni Gentile

Department of Neurosciences, University of Padova, Padova, Italy

Search for more papers by this author
Umberto Granziol

Umberto Granziol

Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy

Search for more papers by this author
Pinar Soysal

Pinar Soysal

Department of Geriatric Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Bezmialem Vakif University, Istanbul, Turkey

Search for more papers by this author
Ovidiu Alexinschi

Ovidiu Alexinschi

Institute of Psychiatry “Socola”, Iasi, Romania

Search for more papers by this author
Lee Smith

Corresponding Author

Lee Smith

The Cambridge Centre for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK

Correspondence

Claudio Luchini, Department of Diagnostics and Public Health, Section of Pathology, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Piazzale Scuro, 10, 37134 Verona, Italy.

Email: [email protected]

Lee Smith, The Cambridge Centre for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK.

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
Marco Solmi

Marco Solmi

Department of Neurosciences, University of Padova, Padova, Italy

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 15 September 2020
Citations: 127

Summary

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses pool data from individual studies to generate a higher level of evidence to be evaluated by guidelines. These reviews ultimately guide clinicians and stakeholders in health-related decisions. However, the informativeness and quality of evidence synthesis inherently depend on the quality of what has been pooled into meta-research projects. Moreover, beyond the quality of included individual studies, only a methodologically correct process, in relation to systematic reviews and meta-analyses themselves, can produce a reliable and valid evidence synthesis. Hence, quality of meta-research projects also affects evidence synthesis reliability. In this overview, the authors provide a synthesis of advantages and disadvantages and main characteristics of some of the most frequently used tools to assess quality of individual studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Specifically, the tools considered in this work are the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) and the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) for observational studies, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), the Jadad scale, the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 (RoB2) for randomized controlled trials, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2), and AMSTAR-PLUS for meta-analyses.

What is already known?

The informativeness and quality of evidence synthesis inherently depend on the quality of what has been pooled into meta-research projects. Beyond the quality of included individual studies, only a methodologically correct process, in relation to systematic reviews and meta-analyses themselves, can produce a reliable and valid evidence synthesis.

What is new?

In this overview, the authors provide a synthesis of advantages and disadvantages and main characteristics of some of the most frequently used tools to assess quality of individual studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

Potential impact

This overview serves as a starting point and a brief guide to identify and understand the main and most frequently used tools for assessing the quality of studies included in meta-research. The authors here share their experience in publishing several meta-research-related articles covering different areas of medical sciences.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Not applicable.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.