Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

A proposed framework for developing quality assessment tools.

Penny Whiting1,2, Robert Wolff3, Susan Mallett4,5

  • 1NIHR CLAHRC West, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK. penny.whiting@bristol.ac.uk.

Systematic Reviews
|October 19, 2017
PubMed
Summary

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Defining Activity-Based Subgroups in Multiple Sclerosis: A Review and Framework Proposal.

European journal of neurology·2026
Same author

Treatments for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: a pathways pilot with systematic review, evidence synthesis and economic model.

Health technology assessment (Winchester, England)·2026
Same author

Comparative effectiveness, safety and acceptability of pharmacological and psychosocial interventions for the treatment of cannabis use disorder: A network meta-analysis.

Addiction (Abingdon, England)·2026
Same author

A retrospective analysis of taxane-based chemotherapy in small bowel adenocarcinoma.

The oncologist·2026
Same author

Phase I trial of binimetinib plus hydroxychloroquine in patients with previously treated metastatic pancreatic cancer.

The oncologist·2026
Same author

Accounting for Genomic Testing Costs in Cost-Effectiveness Evaluations: Challenges and Lessons Learned from the NICE Single Technology Appraisal of Erdafitinib for Treating Unresectable or Metastatic Urothelial Cancer with FGFR3 Alterations After a PD-1 or PD-L1 Inhibitor.

PharmacoEconomics·2026
Same journal

Effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for post-stroke depression: protocol for an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Systematic reviews·2026
Same journal

Outcomes in offspring of interventions to treat substance use in pregnancy: protocol for an umbrella review.

Systematic reviews·2026
Same journal

Association of inflammatory fluid biomarkers with the progression of Alzheimer's disease: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Systematic reviews·2026
Same journal

Environmental moderators of neighbourhood socioeconomic inequalities in mental health: a systematic review protocol.

Systematic reviews·2026
Same journal

Defining interstitial lung disease related to idiopathic inflammatory myopathies: a systematic review protocol of the Myositis Clinical Trial Consortium (MCTC).

Systematic reviews·2026
Same journal

Sexual and reproductive health information needs of young adults with chronic conditions: a scoping review protocol.

Systematic reviews·2026
See all related articles
This summary is machine-generated.

This paper introduces a framework to guide researchers in developing robust quality assessment tools for systematic reviews. Following these stages ensures the creation of reliable instruments for evaluating study quality.

Area of Science:

  • Medical research methodology
  • Evidence-based practice

Background:

  • Assessing the quality of studies is crucial for systematic reviews.
  • Structured tools are essential for formal quality assessment.
  • No current guidelines exist for developing new quality assessment tools.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To provide a framework for developing quality assessment tools.
  • To guide researchers in creating robust and reliable assessment instruments.

Main Methods:

  • Developed a framework based on 14 years of experience creating quality assessment tools.
  • Incorporated insights from the EQUATOR Network's guidance on reporting guidelines.
  • Framework comprises three key stages: initial steps, tool development, and dissemination.
Keywords:
QualityRisk of biasSystematic reviews

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • A general framework is proposed, not a single 'best' approach.
  • The framework offers suggestions for approaching each stage of tool development.
  • Key stages include initial steps, tool development, and dissemination.

Conclusions:

  • Recommends researchers follow the outlined stages for developing new quality assessment tools.
  • Aims to increase the number of tools developed using robust methodologies.
  • The framework promotes the use of sound methods in quality assessment tool creation.