methodological quality


Reference details:


Single A, et al., compilers. HTAi consumer and patient glossary: a beginner’s guide to words used in health technology assessment. Version 1. (Edmonton (AB)): Health Technology Assessment international (HTAi); 2009. Available: http://www.htai.org/fileadmin/HTAi_Files/ISG/PatientInvolvement/Glossary/HTAiPatientAndConsumerGlossaryOctober2009_01.pdf

Reference details:


Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA, Boers M, van den Brandt PA. The art of quality assessment of RCTs included in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54(7):651–4.

Reference details:


Lundh A, Gotzsche PC. Recommendations by Cochrane Review Groups for assessment of the risk of bias in studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008,8:22. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2375895/

Reference details:

The extent to which the design, conduct and analysis of a study are likely to have prevented systematic error and to have produced results that are reliable and valid.

Note 1: Better quality studies are more likely to yield results that are less biased and closer to the true value for an outcome than poorer quality studies.