Using quality assessment tools to critically appraise ageing research: a guide for clinicians

Abstract

Evidence based medicine tells us that we should not accept published research at face value. Even research from established teams published in the highest impact journals can have methodological flaws, biases and limited generalisability. The critical appraisal of research studies can seem daunting, but tools are available to make the process easier for the non-specialist. Understanding the language and process of quality assessment is essential when considering or conducting research, and is also valuable for all clinicians who use published research to inform their clinical practice.We present a review written specifically for the practising geriatrician. This considers how quality is defined in relation to the methodological conduct and reporting of research. Having established why quality assessment is important, we present and critique tools which are available to standardise quality assessment. We consider five study designs: RCTs, non-randomised studies, observational studies, systematic reviews and diagnostic test accuracy studies. Quality assessment for each of these study designs is illustrated with an example of published cognitive research. The practical applications of the tools are highlighted, with guidance on their strengths and limitations. We signpost educational resources and offer specific advice for use of these tools.We hope that all geriatricians become comfortable with critical appraisal of published research and that use of the tools described in this review – along with awareness of their strengths and limitations – become a part of teaching, journal clubs and practice.

The quality of systematic reviews/meta‐analyses published in the field of bariatrics: A cross‐sectional systematic survey using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS

“…SR and MA summarizing the evidence from multiple trials have been published since the 70s, but the methodological quality of those type of studies began to be discussed around 20 years later, which finally lead to the publication of the first version of the AMSTAR Instrument in 2007 . The methodological quality consists of items such as the design and conduct of research, and it is fundamental for physicians to understand the results and the level of confidence in the findings . Thus, the methodological quality' definition is the extent to which an SR is designed in a way enabling producing unbiased results .…”

The effect of hypoglycaemia during hospital admission on health‐related outcomes for people with diabetes: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…Studies were reviewed to determine whether the cohort observed was representative of the study population and whether there was risk of bias in the recruitment process or identification of the exposure to hypoglycaemia . Bias and methodological assessment was completed by two reviewers (AL and CB) using an adapted version of the Newcastle–Ottawa scale .…”

Obesity paradox in subarachnoid hemorrhage: a systematic review

“…To evaluate the heterogeneity and research methods of previous studies, we chose to use the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook and Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) [15]. Based on the appropriate checklists, we focused on selection, detection, and measurement bias; limited and residual confounding; as well as on statistical power and causality between exposures and outcomes.…”