Instruments for Assessing the Quality of Drug Studies Published in the Medical Literature

Mildred K. Cho

180 citations0/0 files storedJAMA

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

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews scientometrics and bibliometrics research Health Education and Validation

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To develop valid and reliable instruments to assess the methodologic quality and clinical relevance of drug studies. DESIGN: We developed an instrument to assess the methodologic quality of articles reporting clinical research and an instrument to measure nonmethodologic measures of quality, such as clinical relevance, generalizability, and adherence to ethical standards. Each instrument was pretested by seven independent, masked reviewers and modified based on interrater agreement and content validity of individual items. We determined correlational validity of the final methodologic quality instrument by comparing quality scores assigned to 10 articles by means of our instrument and a previously published one. PARTICIPANTS: Clinical drug studies published in symposium proceedings and peer reviewed biomedical literature. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Interrater reliability of overall quality scores, measured by intraclass correlation (r) and Kendall's coefficient of concordance (W), and interrater reliability of individual items, by percentage agreement. MAIN RESULTS: The interrater reliability of the pretest methodologic quality instrument was high (r = .89 [95% confidence interval, .73 to .96]; W = 0.64). Correlational validity of the final instrument was suggested by the high degree of concordance with another previously published one (W = 0.74). The interrater reliability of the pretest clinical relevance instrument was moderate (r = .41 [95% confidence interval, .18 to .64]; W = 0.47). Reviewers confirmed the content validity of both instruments. CONCLUSIONS: The two instruments we developed, one measuring methodologic quality and one measuring clinical relevance of articles reporting clinical research, are reliable, valid, and applicable to a variety of research designs.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 180 citations exist upstream.

References

1981A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial 1987Meta-Analysis in Clinical Research 1992Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis 1982Reporting on Methods in Clinical Trials 1958Intraclass Correlation and the Analysis of Variance 1986A quality assessment of randomized control trials of primary treatment of breast cancer.

Cited by

2013Instruments for Assessing Risk of Bias and Other Methodological Criteria of Published Animal Studies: A Systematic Review 1999Assessing “Best Evidence”: Issues in Grading the Quality of Studies for Systematic Reviews 2010Development quality criteria to evaluate nontherapeutic studies of incidence, prevalence, or risk factors of chronic diseases: pilot study of new checklists 2009Evidence-Based Medicine, Systematic Reviews, and Guidelines in Interventional Pain Management: Part 4: Observational Studies 2009No short-cut in assessing trial quality: a case study 2002Publication bias in gastroenterological research – a retrospective cohort study based on abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

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