SStudyAcademic Library

Dashboard Shelves Open access My library Review

Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated

Testing the Newcastle Ottawa Scale showed low reliability between individual reviewers · Study

ArticleShelves

ArticleTesting the Newcastle Ottawa Scale showed low reliability between individual reviewers

Lisa Hartling2013

Article2013

Testing the Newcastle Ottawa Scale showed low reliability between individual reviewers

Lisa Hartling · Andrea Milne · Michele P Hamm · Ben Vandermeer · Mohammed Ansari · Alexander Tsertsvadze +1 more

437 citations·0/0 files stored·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Statistical Methods in Epidemiology Reliability and Agreement in Measurement

Abstract

No abstract was published for this record.

Citations in this library

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 437 citations exist upstream.

References

1977The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data 2008Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 2014The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses 2010Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses 1998The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions.1999The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis 1995Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: An annotated bibliography of scales and checklists 2010Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up?

Cited by

2014Quality assessment of observational studies in a drug-safety systematic review, comparison of two tools: the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and the RTI item bank 2016Perspective: NutriGrade: A Scoring System to Assess and Judge the Meta-Evidence of Randomized Controlled Trials and Cohort Studies in Nutrition Research 2019No 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

Details

Year2013

Typearticle

Published2013-05-16

VenueJournal of Clinical Epidemiology

ISSN-L0895-4356

Languageen

Citations437

Files0 public / 0

ShelfMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Identifiers

doi10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.03.003

openalex_workW1993349052

Links

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.

2015

Failure of a numerical quality assessment scale to identify potential risk of bias in a systematic review: a comparison study

2019Risk of bias tools in systematic reviews of health interventions: an analysis of PROSPERO-registered protocols

2018A systematic review of associations between non-communicable diseases and socioeconomic status within low- and lower-middle-income countries

2025Risk of Bias Evaluation of Cross‐Sectional Studies: Adaptation of the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale

2019The Evidence Project risk of bias tool: assessing study rigor for both randomized and non-randomized intervention studies