Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To systematically review the methodological assessment tools for pre-clinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline. METHODS:We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Reviewers Manual, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP), Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) up to May 20th, 2014. Two authors selected studies and extracted data; quantitative analysis was performed to summarize the characteristics of included tools. RESULTS:We included a total of 21 assessment tools for analysis. A number of tools were developed by academic organizations, and some were developed by only a small group of researchers. The JBI developed the highest number of methodological assessment tools, with CASP coming second. Tools for assessing the methodological quality of randomized controlled studies were most abundant. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias is the best available tool for assessing RCTs. For cohort and case-control studies, we recommend the use of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) is an excellent tool for assessing non-randomized interventional studies, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (ARHQ) methodology checklist is applicable for cross-sectional studies. For diagnostic accuracy test studies, the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool is recommended; the SYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) risk of bias tool is available for assessing animal studies; Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) is a measurement tool for systematic reviews/meta-analyses; an 18-item tool has been developed for appraising case series studies, and the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE)-II instrument is widely used to evaluate clinical practice guidelines. CONCLUSIONS:We have successfully identified a variety of methodological assessment tools for different types of study design. However, further efforts in the development of critical appraisal tools are warranted since there is currently a lack of such tools for other fields, e.g. genetic studies, and some existing tools (nested case-control studies and case reports, for example) are in need of updating to be in line with current research practice and rigor. In addition, it is very important that all critical appraisal tools remain subjective and performance bias is effectively avoided.

Interpretation of AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomized or non-randomized studies of healthcare interventions

AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both

AMSTAR 2 appraisal of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field of heart failure from high-impact journals

amstar2Vis: An R package for presenting the critical appraisal of systematic reviews based on the items of AMSTAR 2

The Application Evaluation of Clinical Decision Support in Auto-verification and Interpretation of Laboratory Test Results

Quality and risk of bias appraisals of systematic reviews are inconsistent across reviewers and centers

157: ASSESSING THE METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY OF DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM (DSS) SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS BY AMSTAR CHECKLIST

[Risk on Bias Assessment: (6) A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment on Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2)].

The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review.

Measuring test-retest reliability (TRR) of AMSTAR provides moderate to perfect agreement - a contribution to the discussion of the importance of TRR in relation to the psychometric properties of assessment tools

Development of the Scientific, Transparent and Applicable Rankings (STAR) tool for clinical practice guidelines

RDDS 2006 PC Co-chairs' Message

[Development of a Ranking Tool for Scientificity, Transparency and Applicability of Clinical Practice Guidelines].

The joanna briggs institute critical appraisal tools use in systematicreviews:Analytic study

Tools for assessing quality of studies investigating health interventions using real-world data: a literature review and content analysis

Improving the usefulness of a tool for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT)

[Introduction on 'assessing the Risk of Bias of Individual Studies' in Systematic Review of Health-Care Intervention Programs Revised by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality].

Application and Quality of Model-Based Meta-Analysis in Pharmaceutical Research: A Systematic Cross-Sectional Analysis and Practical Considerations

Critical Quality Evaluation and Application Value of Network Meta-analyses in Traditional Chinese Medicine

Development and applications of the Anaesthetists Non-Technical Skills behavioural marker system: a systematic review

C-peptide ameliorates renal injury in type 2 diabetic rats through protein kinase A-mediated inhibition of fibronectin synthesis.