Development of the anatomical quality assessment (AQUA) tool for the quality assessment of anatomical studies included in meta-analyses and systematic reviews

被引:156
|
作者
Henry, Brandon Michael [1 ,2 ]
Tomaszewski, Krzysztof A. [1 ,2 ]
Ramakrishnan, Piravin Kumar [1 ,2 ]
Roy, Joyeeta [1 ,2 ]
Vikse, Jens [1 ,2 ]
Loukas, Marios [3 ]
Tubbs, R. Shane [4 ]
Walocha, Jerzy A. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Int Evidence Based Anat Working Grp, Krakow, Poland
[2] Jagiellonian Univ, Dept Anat, Coll Med, 12 Kopernika St, PL-31034 Krakow, Poland
[3] St Georges Univ, Dept Anat Sci, True Blue, Grenada
[4] Seattle Sci Fdn, Seattle, WA USA
关键词
anatomy; tool; quality assessment; bias; validity; METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY; SURGICAL ANATOMY; CLINICAL-TRIALS; FEMORAL-ARTERY; NERVE; EPIDEMIOLOGY; ORIGIN; BIAS;
D O I
10.1002/ca.22799
中图分类号
R602 [外科病理学、解剖学]; R32 [人体形态学];
学科分类号
100101 ;
摘要
Critical appraisal of anatomical studies is essential before the evidence from them undergoes meta-epidemiological synthesis. However, no instrument for appraising anatomical studies with inherent applicability to different study designs is available. We aim to develop a generic yet comprehensive tool for assessing the quality of anatomical studies using a formal consensus method. The study steering committee formulated an initial conceptual design and generated items for a preliminary tool on the basis of a literature review and expert opinion. A Delphi procedure was then adopted to assess the validity of the preliminary tool. Feedback from the Delphi panelists was used to improve it. The Delphi procedure involved 12 experts in anatomical research. It comprised two rounds, after which unanimous consensus was reached about the items to be included. The preliminary tool consisted of 20 items, which were phrased as signaling questions and organized into five domains: 1. Aim and subject characteristics, 2. Study design, 3. Characterization of methods, 4. Descriptive anatomy, and 5. Results reporting. Each domain was set to end with a risk of bias question. Following round 1, some of the items underwent major revision, although agreement was reached regarding inclusion of all the domains and signaling questions in the preliminary tool. The tool was revised only for minor language inaccuracies after round 2. The AQUA Tool was designed to assess the quality and reliability of anatomical studies. It is currently undergoing a validation process. Clin. Anat. 30:6-13, 2017. (c) 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:6 / 13
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Quality assessment for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of cohort studies
    Qumseya, Bashar J.
    [J]. GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2021, 93 (02) : 486 - +
  • [2] Development of quality assessment tool for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of real-world studies: a Delphi consensus survey
    Gebrye, Tadesse
    Mbada, Chidozie
    Hakimi, Zalmai
    Fatoye, Francis
    [J]. RHEUMATOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, 2024, 44 (07) : 1275 - 1281
  • [3] The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews
    Penny Whiting
    Anne WS Rutjes
    Johannes B Reitsma
    Patrick MM Bossuyt
    Jos Kleijnen
    [J]. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 3 (1)
  • [4] Meningioma systematic reviews and meta-analyses: an assessment of reporting and methodological quality
    George, Alan M.
    Gupta, Shubhi
    Keshwara, Sumirat M.
    Mustafa, Mohammad A.
    Gillespie, Conor S.
    Richardson, George E.
    Steele, Amy C.
    Najafabadi, Amir H. Zamanipoor
    Dirven, Linda
    Marson, Anthony G.
    Islim, Abdurrahman I.
    Jenkinson, Michael D.
    Millward, Christopher P.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, 2022, 36 (06) : 678 - 685
  • [5] AN ASSESSMENT OF THE REPORTING AND METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY OF MENINGIOMA SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES
    George, A. M.
    Gupta, S.
    Keshwara, S. M.
    Mustafa, M. A.
    Gillespie, C. S.
    Richardson, G. E.
    Steele, A. C.
    Islim, A. I.
    Jenkinson, M. D.
    Millward, C. P.
    [J]. NEURO-ONCOLOGY, 2021, 23 : 51 - 52
  • [6] Reply: Quality assessment of studies included in systematic reviews
    Boelig, Rupsa C.
    Saccone, Gabriele
    Berghella, Vincenzo
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY MFM, 2022, 4 (05)
  • [7] A Reporting Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Sports Physical Therapy: A Review of Reviews
    Cho, Sung-Hyoun
    Shin, In-Soo
    [J]. HEALTHCARE, 2021, 9 (10)
  • [8] Quality Control in Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses
    Bown, M. J.
    Sutton, A. J.
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF VASCULAR AND ENDOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2010, 40 (05) : 669 - 677
  • [9] Quality assessment of systematic reviews or meta-analyses of nursing interventions conducted by Korean reviewers
    Hyun-Ju Seo
    Kyeong Uoon Kim
    [J]. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12
  • [10] Quality assessment of systematic reviews or meta-analyses of nursing interventions conducted by Korean reviewers
    Seo, Hyun-Ju
    Kim, Kyeong Uoon
    [J]. BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2012, 12