Quality assessment in meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: An important characteristic of meta-analysis is that the results are determined both by themanagement of the meta-analysis process and by the features of studies included. The scientific rigor ofpotential primary studies varies considerably and the common objection to meta-analytic summaries is thatthey combine results from studies of different quality. Researchers began to develop quality scales forexperimental studies, however now the interest of researchers is also focusing on observational studies.Since 1980, when Chalmers developed the first quality scale to assess primary studies included in meta-analysis, more than 100 scales have been developed, which vary dramatically in the quality and quantity ofthe items included. No standard lists of items exist, and the used quality scales lack empirically-supportedcomponents.Methods: Two of the most important and diffuse quality scales for experimental studies, Jadad system andChalmers’ scale, and a quality scale used for observational studies, developed by Angelillo et al., aredescribed and compared.Conclusion: The fallibility of meta-analysis is not surprising, considering the various bias that may beintroduced by the processes of locating and selecting studies, including publication bias, language bias andcitation bias. Quality assessment of the studies offers an estimate of the likelihood that their results willexpress the truth

Cite this work

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

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 37 citations exist upstream.

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