Cover Image
QR Code

Assessing the quality of primary studies in systematic reviews.

Systematic reviews are considered the best source of evidence of health care interventions. The review however can only be as good as the studies included in it. All reviewers must therefore assess the quality of the primary studies included in their review to increase the validity of the results of...

Full description

Published in:International Journal of Health Promotion & Education Vol. 46; no. 4; pp. 139 - 142
Main Author: Sheikh Moeen ul Haq
Format: tables/charts Journal Article
Published: Taylor & Francis Ltd 2008
Online Access:View this record in EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=105606718&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 105606718
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        14635240
        E5G
      jtl: International Journal of Health Promotion & Education
      issn: 14635240
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: 2008
      vid: 46
      iid: 4
      pid: 377
      pub: Taylor & Francis Ltd
      place: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    artinfo:
      ui:
        105606718
        2010145355
        10.1080/14635240.2008.10708147
        105606718
      ppf: 139
      ppct: 3
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
      tig:
        atl: Assessing the quality of primary studies in systematic reviews.
      aug:
        au: Sheikh Moeen ul Haq
      sug:
        subj:
          Research Evaluation
          Systematic Review Evaluation
          Sensitivity and Specificity
          Validity
      ab: Systematic reviews are considered the best source of evidence of health care interventions. The review however can only be as good as the studies included in it. All reviewers must therefore assess the quality of the primary studies included in their review to increase the validity of the results of their review and hence the conclusions drawn from it. There are broadly two approaches to assessment of study quality: the component approach and the composite approach. The former relies on assessment of individual domains pertaining to the conduct or methodology of the clinical trial such as allocation concealment, blinding of participants and assessments etc. The latter relies on a numerical composite score derived from scoring of these individual domains. Both approaches have been used by reviewers though the former is the more flexible in its approach to assessing study quality and is the recommended style of the Cochrane Collaboration.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        tables/charts
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N