Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 17, 2026
Establishing a Competing Risk Regression Nomogram Model for Survival Data
Published on: October 23, 2020
Evaluation of the quality of prognosis studies in systematic reviews
Jill A Hayden1, Pierre Côté, Claire Bombardier
1Institute for Work and Health, University of Toronto, and Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. jhayden@iwh.on.ca
Background:
To provide valid assessments of answers to prognostic questions, systematic reviews must appraise the quality of the available evidence. However, no standard quality assessment method is currently available.
Purpose:
To appraise how authors assess the quality of individual studies in systematic reviews about prognosis and to propose recommendations for these quality assessments.
Data Sources:
English-language publications listed in MEDLINE from 1966 to October 2005 and review of cited references.
Study Selection:
163 systematic reviews about prognosis that included assessments of the quality of studies.
Data Extraction:
A total of 882 distinct quality items were extracted from the assessments that were reported in the various reviews. Using an iterative process, 2 independent reviewers grouped the items into 25 domains. The authors then specifically identified domains necessary to assess potential biases of studies and evaluated how often those domains had been addressed in each review.
Data Synthesis:
Fourteen of the domains addressed 6 sources of bias related to study participation, study attrition, measurement of prognostic factors, measurement of and controlling for confounding variables, measurement of outcomes, and analysis approaches. Reviews assessed a median of 2 of the 6 potential biases; only 2 (1%) included criteria aimed at appraising all potential sources of bias. Few reviews adequately assessed the impact of confounding (12%), although more than half (59%) appraised the methods used to measure the prognostic factors of interest.
Limitations:
Reviews may have been missed by the search or misclassified because of incomplete reporting. Validity and reliability testing of the authors' recommendations are required.
Conclusions:
Quality appraisal, a necessary step in systematic reviews, is incomplete in most reviews of prognosis studies. Adequate quality assessment should include judgments about 6 areas of potential study biases. Authors should incorporate these quality assessments into their synthesis of evidence about prognosis.
Related Concept Videos
01:11Guidelines for Writing Outcome
Patient outcomes reflect the patient's response to the goal rather than what the nurse aims to achieve. Terminology should be observable and measurable to avoid the reader's interpretation. The desired outcome should be realistic and achievable in the designated care timeframe. Expected outcomes should align with adjunctive therapies. The outcome should enhance care evaluation by...
01:15Nursing Evaluation
Section...
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
01:24Kaplan-Meier Approach
01:20Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
01:21Cancer Survival Analysis