A suggestion for quality assessment in systematic reviews of observational studies in nutritional epidemiology

OBJECTIVES: It is important to control the quality level of the observational studies in conducting meta-analyses. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) is a representative tool used for this purpose. We investigated the relationship between high-quality (HQ) defined using NOS and the results of subgroup...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Jong-Myon Bae
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Korean Society of Epidemiology 2016-04-01
Series:Epidemiology and Health
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.e-epih.org/upload/pdf/epih-38-e2016014.pdf
id doaj-005f690b2e0344c7b1b20ee0c32c501a
record_format Article
spelling doaj-005f690b2e0344c7b1b20ee0c32c501a2020-11-24T23:38:39ZengKorean Society of Epidemiology Epidemiology and Health2092-71932016-04-013810.4178/epih.e2016014837A suggestion for quality assessment in systematic reviews of observational studies in nutritional epidemiologyJong-Myon BaeOBJECTIVES: It is important to control the quality level of the observational studies in conducting meta-analyses. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) is a representative tool used for this purpose. We investigated the relationship between high-quality (HQ) defined using NOS and the results of subgroup analysis according to study design. METHODS: We selected systematic review studies with meta-analysis which performed a quality evaluation on observational studies of diet and cancer by NOS. HQ determinations and the distribution of study designs were examined. Subgroup analyses according to quality level as defined by the NOS were also extracted. Equivalence was evaluated based on the summary effect size (sES) and 95% confidence intervals computed in the subgroup analysis. RESULTS: The meta-analysis results of the HQ and cohort groups were identical. The overall sES, which was obtained by combining the sES when equivalence was observed between the cohort and case-control groups, also showed equivalence. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that it is more reasonable to control for quality level by performing subgroup analysis according to study design rather than by using HQ based on the NOS quality assessment tool.http://www.e-epih.org/upload/pdf/epih-38-e2016014.pdfMeta-analysisQuality evaluationResearch designQuality control
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Jong-Myon Bae
spellingShingle Jong-Myon Bae
A suggestion for quality assessment in systematic reviews of observational studies in nutritional epidemiology
Epidemiology and Health
Meta-analysis
Quality evaluation
Research design
Quality control
author_facet Jong-Myon Bae
author_sort Jong-Myon Bae
title A suggestion for quality assessment in systematic reviews of observational studies in nutritional epidemiology
title_short A suggestion for quality assessment in systematic reviews of observational studies in nutritional epidemiology
title_full A suggestion for quality assessment in systematic reviews of observational studies in nutritional epidemiology
title_fullStr A suggestion for quality assessment in systematic reviews of observational studies in nutritional epidemiology
title_full_unstemmed A suggestion for quality assessment in systematic reviews of observational studies in nutritional epidemiology
title_sort suggestion for quality assessment in systematic reviews of observational studies in nutritional epidemiology
publisher Korean Society of Epidemiology
series Epidemiology and Health
issn 2092-7193
publishDate 2016-04-01
description OBJECTIVES: It is important to control the quality level of the observational studies in conducting meta-analyses. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) is a representative tool used for this purpose. We investigated the relationship between high-quality (HQ) defined using NOS and the results of subgroup analysis according to study design. METHODS: We selected systematic review studies with meta-analysis which performed a quality evaluation on observational studies of diet and cancer by NOS. HQ determinations and the distribution of study designs were examined. Subgroup analyses according to quality level as defined by the NOS were also extracted. Equivalence was evaluated based on the summary effect size (sES) and 95% confidence intervals computed in the subgroup analysis. RESULTS: The meta-analysis results of the HQ and cohort groups were identical. The overall sES, which was obtained by combining the sES when equivalence was observed between the cohort and case-control groups, also showed equivalence. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that it is more reasonable to control for quality level by performing subgroup analysis according to study design rather than by using HQ based on the NOS quality assessment tool.
topic Meta-analysis
Quality evaluation
Research design
Quality control
url http://www.e-epih.org/upload/pdf/epih-38-e2016014.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT jongmyonbae asuggestionforqualityassessmentinsystematicreviewsofobservationalstudiesinnutritionalepidemiology
AT jongmyonbae suggestionforqualityassessmentinsystematicreviewsofobservationalstudiesinnutritionalepidemiology
_version_ 1725516329503424512