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
. 2017 Oct 17;6(1):204.
doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0604-6.

A proposed framework for developing quality assessment tools

Penny Whiting  1   2 , Robert Wolff  3 , Susan Mallett  4   5 , Iveta Simera  6 , Jelena Savović  7   8
Affiliations

A proposed framework for developing quality assessment tools

Penny Whiting et al. Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Assessment of the quality of included studies is an essential component of any systematic review. A formal quality assessment is facilitated by using a structured tool. There are currently no guidelines available for researchers wanting to develop a new quality assessment tool.

Methods: This paper provides a framework for developing quality assessment tools based on our experiences of developing a variety of quality assessment tools for studies of differing designs over the last 14 years. We have also drawn on experience from the work of the EQUATOR Network in producing guidance for developing reporting guidelines.

Results: We do not recommend a single 'best' approach. Instead, we provide a general framework with suggestions as to how the different stages can be approached. Our proposed framework is based around three key stages: initial steps, tool development and dissemination.

Conclusions: We recommend that anyone who would like to develop a new quality assessment tool follow the stages outlined in this paper. We hope that our proposed framework will increase the number of tools developed using robust methods.

Keywords: Quality; Risk of bias; Systematic reviews.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Overview of proposed framework
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Murad MH, Montori VM. Synthesizing evidence: shifting the focus from individual studies to the body of evidence. JAMA. 2013;309(21):2217–2218. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.5616. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care [internet]. In. York: University of York; 2009. [accessed 23 Mar 2011].
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S (eds.): Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions [Internet]. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. [accessed 23 Mar 2011].
    1. Torgerson D, Torgerson C. Designing randomised trials in health, education and the social sciences: an introduction. New York: Palgrave MacMillan; 2008.
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, Montori V, Akl EA, Djulbegovic B, Falck-Ytter Y, et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias) J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):407–415. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.017. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources