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

被引:155
|
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
  • [31] Are normative sonographic values of kidney size in children valid and reliable? A systematic review of the methodological quality of ultrasound studies using the Anatomical Quality Assessment (AQUA) tool
    Viswas Chhapola
    Soumya Tiwari
    Bobbity Deepthi
    Brandon Michael Henry
    Rekha Brar
    Sandeep Kumar Kanwal
    [J]. Journal of Nephrology, 2019, 32 : 335 - 345
  • [32] Are normative sonographic values of kidney size in children valid and reliable? A systematic review of the methodological quality of ultrasound studies using the Anatomical Quality Assessment (AQUA) tool
    Chhapola, Viswas
    Tiwari, Soumya
    Deepthi, Bobbity
    Henry, Brandon Michael
    Brar, Rekha
    Kanwal, Sandeep Kumar
    [J]. JOURNAL OF NEPHROLOGY, 2019, 32 (03) : 335 - 345
  • [33] Methodological and reporting quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the association between sleep duration and hypertension
    Yang, Qinglong
    Xian, Haodong
    Cheng, Xianzong
    Wu, Xiuming
    Meng, Jingyu
    Chen, Weizhong
    Zeng, Ziqian
    [J]. SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2024, 13 (01)
  • [34] Review and Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses on the Management of Pediatric Inguinal Hernias: A Descriptive Study
    Alshahwani, Noora
    Briatico, Daniel
    Lee, Wonjae
    Farrokhyar, Forough
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH, 2022, 278 : 404 - 417
  • [35] Quality of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of resveratrol: A methodological systematic review
    Lu, Cuncun
    Ke, Lixin
    Zhang, Qiang
    Deng, Xiuxiu
    Shang, Wenru
    Zhao, Xiaoxiao
    Li, Yuanyuan
    Xie, Yanming
    Wang, Zhifei
    [J]. PHYTOTHERAPY RESEARCH, 2024, 38 (01) : 11 - 21
  • [36] Recommendations to Improve Quality of Probiotic Systematic Reviews With Meta-Analyses
    McFarland, Lynne V.
    Hecht, Gail
    Sanders, Mary E.
    Goff, Debra A.
    Goldstein, Ellie J. C.
    Hill, Colin
    Johnson, Stuart
    Kashi, Maryam R.
    Kullar, Ravina
    Marco, Maria L.
    Merenstein, Daniel J.
    Millette, Mathieu
    Preidis, Geoffrey A.
    Quigley, Eamonn M. M.
    Reid, Gregor
    Salminen, Seppo
    Sniffen, Jason C.
    Sokol, Harry
    Szajewska, Hania
    Tancredi, Daniel J.
    Woolard, Kristin
    [J]. JAMA NETWORK OPEN, 2023, 6 (12) : E2346872
  • [37] Methodological and Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Endodontics
    Nagendrababu, Venkateshbabu
    Pulikkotil, Shaju Jacob
    Sultan, Omer Sheriff
    Jayaraman, Jayakumar
    Peters, Ove A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS, 2018, 44 (06) : 903 - 913
  • [38] The assessment of the quality of reporting of meta-analyses in diagnostic research: a systematic review
    Willis, Brian H.
    Quigley, Muireann
    [J]. BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2011, 11
  • [39] An Assessment of the Methodological Quality of Published Network Meta-Analyses: A Systematic Review
    Chambers, James D.
    Naci, Huseyin
    Wouters, Olivier J.
    Pyo, Junhee
    Gunjal, Shalak
    Kennedy, Ian R.
    Hoey, Mark G.
    Winn, Aaron
    Neumann, Peter J.
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2015, 10 (04):
  • [40] The assessment of the quality of reporting of meta-analyses in diagnostic research: a systematic review
    Brian H Willis
    Muireann Quigley
    [J]. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11