File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Development of a quality assessment tool for systematic reviews of observational studies (QATSO) of HIV prevalence in men having sex with men and associated risk behaviours

TitleDevelopment of a quality assessment tool for systematic reviews of observational studies (QATSO) of HIV prevalence in men having sex with men and associated risk behaviours
Authors
KeywordsExternal Validity
Human
Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection
Infection Risk
Internal Validity
Male Homosexual
Prevalence
Quality Control
Review
Scoring System
Systematic Review
Issue Date2008
PublisherBioMed Central Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.ete-online.com/home/
Citation
Emerging Themes In Epidemiology, 2008, v. 5 How to Cite?
AbstractBackground. Systematic reviews based on the critical appraisal of observational and analytic studies on HIV prevalence and risk factors for HIV transmission among men having sex with men are very useful for health care decisions and planning. Such appraisal is particularly difficult, however, as the quality assessment tools available for use with observational and analytic studies are poorly established. Methods. We reviewed the existing quality assessment tools for systematic reviews of observational studies and developed a concise quality assessment checklist to help standardise decisions regarding the quality of studies, with careful consideration of issues such as external and internal validity. Results. A pilot version of the checklist was developed based on epidemiological principles, reviews of study designs, and existing checklists for the assessment of observational studies. The Quality Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews of Observational Studies (QATSO) Score consists of five items: External validity (1 item), reporting (2 items), bias (1 item) and confounding factors (1 item). Expert opinions were sought and it was tested on manuscripts that fulfil the inclusion criteria of a systematic review. Like all assessment scales, QATSO may oversimplify and generalise information yet it is inclusive, simple and practical to use, and allows comparability between papers. Conclusion. A specific tool that allows researchers to appraise and guide study quality of observational studies is developed and can be modified for similar studies in the future. © 2008 Wong et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/132420
ISSN
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.172
PubMed Central ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWong, WCWen_HK
dc.contributor.authorCheung, CSKen_HK
dc.contributor.authorHart, GJen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2011-03-28T09:24:28Z-
dc.date.available2011-03-28T09:24:28Z-
dc.date.issued2008en_HK
dc.identifier.citationEmerging Themes In Epidemiology, 2008, v. 5en_HK
dc.identifier.issn1742-7622en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/132420-
dc.description.abstractBackground. Systematic reviews based on the critical appraisal of observational and analytic studies on HIV prevalence and risk factors for HIV transmission among men having sex with men are very useful for health care decisions and planning. Such appraisal is particularly difficult, however, as the quality assessment tools available for use with observational and analytic studies are poorly established. Methods. We reviewed the existing quality assessment tools for systematic reviews of observational studies and developed a concise quality assessment checklist to help standardise decisions regarding the quality of studies, with careful consideration of issues such as external and internal validity. Results. A pilot version of the checklist was developed based on epidemiological principles, reviews of study designs, and existing checklists for the assessment of observational studies. The Quality Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews of Observational Studies (QATSO) Score consists of five items: External validity (1 item), reporting (2 items), bias (1 item) and confounding factors (1 item). Expert opinions were sought and it was tested on manuscripts that fulfil the inclusion criteria of a systematic review. Like all assessment scales, QATSO may oversimplify and generalise information yet it is inclusive, simple and practical to use, and allows comparability between papers. Conclusion. A specific tool that allows researchers to appraise and guide study quality of observational studies is developed and can be modified for similar studies in the future. © 2008 Wong et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.en_HK
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherBioMed Central Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.ete-online.com/home/en_HK
dc.relation.ispartofEmerging Themes in Epidemiologyen_HK
dc.subjectExternal Validityen_US
dc.subjectHumanen_US
dc.subjectHuman Immunodeficiency Virus Infectionen_US
dc.subjectInfection Risken_US
dc.subjectInternal Validityen_US
dc.subjectMale Homosexualen_US
dc.subjectPrevalenceen_US
dc.subjectQuality Controlen_US
dc.subjectReviewen_US
dc.subjectScoring Systemen_US
dc.subjectSystematic Reviewen_US
dc.titleDevelopment of a quality assessment tool for systematic reviews of observational studies (QATSO) of HIV prevalence in men having sex with men and associated risk behavioursen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.emailWong, WCW:wongwcw@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityWong, WCW=rp01457en_HK
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_versionen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/1742-7622-5-23en_HK
dc.identifier.pmid19014686-
dc.identifier.pmcidPMC2603000-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-57749180148en_HK
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-57749180148&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume5en_HK
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridWong, WCW=25230779000en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridCheung, CSK=7202060899en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridHart, GJ=7401647763en_HK
dc.identifier.citeulike3561731-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats