For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
100
views
20
references
 Top references
cited by
522
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      74
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS)

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          The aim of this study was to develop a critical appraisal (CA) tool that addressed study design and reporting quality as well as the risk of bias in cross-sectional studies (CSSs). In addition, the aim was to produce a help document to guide the non-expert user through the tool.

          Design

          An initial scoping review of the published literature and key epidemiological texts was undertaken prior to the formation of a Delphi panel to establish key components for a CA tool for CSSs. A consensus of 80% was required from the Delphi panel for any component to be included in the final tool.

          Results

          An initial list of 39 components was identified through examination of existing resources. An international Delphi panel of 18 medical and veterinary experts was established. After 3 rounds of the Delphi process, the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS tool) was developed by consensus and consisted of 20 components. A detailed explanatory document was also developed with the tool, giving expanded explanation of each question and providing simple interpretations and examples of the epidemiological concepts being examined in each question to aid non-expert users.

          Conclusions

          CA of the literature is a vital step in evidence synthesis and therefore evidence-based decision-making in a number of different disciplines. The AXIS tool is therefore unique and was developed in a way that it can be used across disciplines to aid the inclusion of CSSs in systematic reviews, guidelines and clinical decision-making.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

          Erik von Elm, Douglas G Altman, Matthias Egger … (2007)
          Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies. We convened a two-day workshop, in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.
          Article 0 comments Cited 594 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials.

            P Jüni, D Altman, M. Egger (2001)
            Article 0 comments Cited 456 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses.

              D Moher, D J Cook, S. Eastwood … (1999)
              The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) conference was convened to address standards for improving the quality of reporting of meta-analyses of clinical randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The QUOROM group consisted of 30 clinical epidemiologists, clinicians, statisticians, editors, and researchers. In conference, the group was asked to identify items they thought should be included in a checklist of standards. Whenever possible, checklist items were guided by research evidence suggesting that failure to adhere to the item proposed could lead to biased results. A modified Delphi technique was used in assessing candidate items. The conference resulted in the QUOROM statement, a checklist, and a flow diagram. The checklist describes our preferred way to present the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of a report of a meta-analysis. It is organised into 21 headings and subheadings regarding searches, selection, validity assessment, data abstraction, study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis, and in the results with "trial flow", study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis; research documentation was identified for eight of the 18 items. The flow diagram provides information about both the numbers of RCTs identified, included, and excluded and the reasons for exclusion of trials. We hope this report will generate further thought about ways to improve the quality of reports of meta-analyses of RCTs and that interested readers, reviewers, researchers, and editors will use the QUOROM statement and generate ideas for its improvement.
              Article 0 comments Cited 421 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMJ Open
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): BMJ Open
                Journal ID (hwp): bmjopen
                Journal ID (publisher-id): bmjopen
                Title: BMJ Open
                Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                ISSN (Electronic): 2044-6055
                Publication date Collection: 2016
                Publication date (Electronic): 8 December 2016
                Volume: 6
                Issue: 12
                Electronic Location Identifier: e011458
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine, Griffith University , Meadowbrook, Queensland, Australia
                [2 ]Centre for Evidence-based Veterinary Medicine, The University of Nottingham , Loughborough, UK
                [3 ]Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, The University of Nottingham , Nottingham, UK
                Author notes

                MJD, MLB and RSD contributed equally to this work.

                [Correspondence to ] Dr Rachel S Dean; rachel.dean@ 123456nottingham.ac.uk
                Article
                Publisher ID: bmjopen-2016-011458
                DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011458
                PMC ID: 5168618
                PubMed ID: 27932337
                SO-VID: 053ca9ce-1996-4b7c-a726-4e0af1561ef8
                Copyright © Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
                License:

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                Date received : 15 February 2016
                Date revision received : 7 November 2016
                Date accepted : 8 November 2016
                Categories
                Subject: Evidence Based Practice
                Subject: Research
                Subject: 1506
                Subject: 1694
                Subject: 1692
                Subject: 1709
                Subject: 1722
                Subject: 1730

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine
                Keywords: cross sectional studies,critical appraisal,evidence-based healthcare,delphi
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine
                Keywords: cross sectional studies, critical appraisal, evidence-based healthcare, delphi

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content74

                See all similar

                Cited by604

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors971

                See all reference authors