Record Display for the EPA National Library Catalog

RECORD NUMBER: 26 OF 90

OLS Field Name OLS Field Data
Main Title Development of quality criteria to evaluate nontherapeutic studies of incidence, prevalence, or risk factors of chronic diseases : pilot study of new checklists /
Other Authors
Author Title of a Work
Shamliyan, Tatyana.
Publisher U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality,
Year Published 2011
OCLC Number 727780490
Subjects Epidemiologic Studies. ; Checklist. ; Chronic Disease--epidemiology. ; Pilot Projects. ; Research Design. ; Risk Factors.
Internet Access
Description Access URL
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=methresdisease
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53272/pdf/TOC.pdf
Holdings
Library Call Number Additional Info Location Last
Modified
Checkout
Status
ELBM  RA644.6.D48 2011 AWBERC Library/Cincinnati,OH 06/07/2011
Collation vi, 30, A36, B8 p. : ill., charts : 28 cm.
Notes
"Contract no. 290-02-0009." "January 2011." Includes bibliographical references.
Contents Notes
OBJECTIVE: To develop two checklists for the quality of observational studies of incidence or risk factors of diseases. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Initial development of the checklists was based on a systematic literature review. The checklists were refined after pilot trials of validity and reliability were conducted by seven experts, who tested the checklists on 10 articles. RESULTS: The checklist for studies of incidence or prevalence of chronic disease had six criteria for external validity and five for internal validity. The checklist for risk factor studies had 6 criteria for external validity, 13 criteria for internal validity, and 2 aspects of causality. A Microsoft Access database produced automated standardized reports about external and internal validities. Pilot testing demonstrated face and content validities and discrimination of reporting vs. methodological qualities. Interrater agreement was poor. The experts suggested future reliability testing of the checklists in systematic reviews with preplanned protocols, a priori consensus about research-specific quality criteria, and training of the reviewers. CONCLUSIONS: We propose transparent and standardized quality assessment criteria of observational studies using the developed checklists. Future testing of the checklists in systematic reviews is necessary to develop reliable tools that can be used with confidence.