2015
DOI: 10.1111/joa.12292
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Appraising the methodological quality of cadaveric studies: validation of the QUACS scale

Abstract: Although systematic reviews are conducted in the field of anatomical research, no instruments exist for the assessment of study quality. Thus, our objective was to develop a valid tool that reliably assesses the methodological quality of observational cadaveric studies. The QUACS scale (QUality Appraisal for Cadaveric Studies) was developed using an expert consensus process. It consists of a 13-item checklist addressing the design, conduct and report of cadaveric dissection studies. To evaluate inter-rater rel… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
108
0
3

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 134 publications
(112 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
1
108
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, data obtained from preclinical models must be interpreted with outmost care when, for instance, approaching clinical situations in feasibility studies. However, there are data available to estimate the physical parameters in a given tissue based on experiments with cadaveric samples . Based on current clinical experience with the waterjet technology, a pressure range of E60 to E80 seems reasonable to reach but not penetrate the sphincter muscle.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, data obtained from preclinical models must be interpreted with outmost care when, for instance, approaching clinical situations in feasibility studies. However, there are data available to estimate the physical parameters in a given tissue based on experiments with cadaveric samples . Based on current clinical experience with the waterjet technology, a pressure range of E60 to E80 seems reasonable to reach but not penetrate the sphincter muscle.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It has been shown to be a reliable and valid tool to appraise the quality of observational cadaveric studies, and has been described elsewhere in detail (Wilke et al. ). Methodological quality of in vivo experimental studies was evaluated with the PEDro scale (Sherrington et al.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the lack of information regarding the development of their appraisal tool and the assessment of its validity and feasibility are significant limitations. Wilke et al developed the QUality Appraisal for Cadaveric Studies (QUACS) scale to assess the quality of observational cadaveric studies (Wilke et al, 2015). Although this tool was also developed using an expert consensus process and assessed for reliability, validity, and feasibility, it employs a scale system and is only applicable to observational cadaveric studies.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, the QUACS scale considers elements that are not directly related to methodological quality and risk of bias, and includes several items regarding the overall quality of an article such as "clinical implication of the results are discussed" and "limitation of the results are addressed." Considering the strengths and weaknesses of the tools available in anatomical research and observational studies (Sanderson et al, 2007;Smith et al, 2008;von Elm et al, 2008;Wilke et al, 2015), the AQUA Tool was designed to be applicable across different types of anatomical studies (gross, microscopic, surface, surgical, radiological, developmental, electrophysiological, etc.) since they might be pooled together into a single analysis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%