Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Dec 8;6(12):e011458.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011458.

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

Martin J Downes  1 , Marnie L Brennan  2 , Hywel C Williams  3 , Rachel S Dean  2
Affiliations

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

Martin J Downes et al. BMJ Open. .

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.

Keywords: Critical appraisal; Cross sectional studies; Delphi; Evidence-based Healthcare.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

References

    1. Cockcroft PD, Holmes MA. Handbook of evidence-based veterinary medicine. 1st edn Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2003.
    1. McColl A, Smith H, White P et al. . General practitioner's perceptions of the route to evidence based medicine: a questionnaire survey. BMJ 1998;316:361–5. 10.1136/bmj.316.7128.361 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rosenberg W, Donald A. Evidence based medicine: an approach to clinical problem-solving. BMJ 1995;310:1122–6. 10.1136/bmj.310.6987.1122 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Silagy CA, Stead LF, Lancaster T. Use of systematic reviews in clinical practice guidelines: case study of smoking cessation. BMJ 2001;323:833–6. 10.1136/bmj.323.7317.833 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley Online Library, 2008.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources