Abstract
Assessing the quality of an epidemiological study equates to assessing whether the inferences drawn from it are warranted when account is taken of the methods, the representativeness of the study sample, and the nature of the population from which it is drawn. Bias, confounding, and chance can threaten the quality of an epidemiological study at all its phases. Nevertheless, their presence does not necessarily imply that a study should be disregarded. The reader must first balance any of these threats or missing information with their potential impact on the conclusions of the report.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (208.8 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Akehurst R., Kaltenthaler E. Treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: a review of randomised controlled trials. Gut. 2001 Feb;48(2):272–282. doi: 10.1136/gut.48.2.272. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bosch F. X., Lorincz A., Muñoz N., Meijer C. J. L. M., Shah K. V. The causal relation between human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. J Clin Pathol. 2002 Apr;55(4):244–265. doi: 10.1136/jcp.55.4.244. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Brayne C. Clinicopathological studies of the dementias from an epidemiological viewpoint. Br J Psychiatry. 1993 Apr;162:439–446. doi: 10.1192/bjp.162.4.439. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Crosby R. A. Condom use as a dependent variable: measurement issues relevant to HIV prevention programs. AIDS Educ Prev. 1998 Dec;10(6):548–557. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Doll R., Peto R. Mortality in relation to smoking: 20 years' observations on male British doctors. Br Med J. 1976 Dec 25;2(6051):1525–1536. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.6051.1525. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Embree B. G., Whitehead P. C. Validity and reliability of self-reported drinking behavior: dealing with the problem of response bias. J Stud Alcohol. 1993 May;54(3):334–344. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1993.54.334. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fergusson Dean, Aaron Shawn D., Guyatt Gordon, Hébert Paul. Post-randomisation exclusions: the intention to treat principle and excluding patients from analysis. BMJ. 2002 Sep 21;325(7365):652–654. doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7365.652. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Flood V., Webb K., Lazarus R., Pang G. Use of self-report to monitor overweight and obesity in populations: some issues for consideration. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2000 Feb;24(1):96–99. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-842x.2000.tb00733.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Greenhalgh T. Assessing the methodological quality of published papers. BMJ. 1997 Aug 2;315(7103):305–308. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7103.305. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- HILL A. B. THE ENVIRONMENT AND DISEASE: ASSOCIATION OR CAUSATION? Proc R Soc Med. 1965 May;58:295–300. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hróbjartsson A., Gøtzsche P. C. Placebo treatment versus no treatment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(1):CD003974–CD003974. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003974. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Jüni P., Altman D. G., Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ. 2001 Jul 7;323(7303):42–46. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7303.42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lexchin Joel, Bero Lisa A., Djulbegovic Benjamin, Clark Otavio. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ. 2003 May 31;326(7400):1167–1170. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mirra S. S., Heyman A., McKeel D., Sumi S. M., Crain B. J., Brownlee L. M., Vogel F. S., Hughes J. P., van Belle G., Berg L. The Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD). Part II. Standardization of the neuropathologic assessment of Alzheimer's disease. Neurology. 1991 Apr;41(4):479–486. doi: 10.1212/wnl.41.4.479. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Neal B., Rodgers A., Mackie M. J., MacMahon S. Forty years of randomised trials in the New Zealand Medical Journal. N Z Med J. 1996 Oct 11;109(1031):372–373. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sackett D. L. Bias in analytic research. J Chronic Dis. 1979;32(1-2):51–63. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(79)90012-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Schulz Kenneth F., Grimes David A. Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering. Lancet. 2002 Feb 16;359(9306):614–618. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07750-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Shaffer H. J., Eber G. B., Hall M. N., Vander Bilt J. Smoking behavior among casino employees: self-report validation using plasma cotinine. Addict Behav. 2000 Sep-Oct;25(5):693–704. doi: 10.1016/s0306-4603(00)00076-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wagenknecht L. E., Burke G. L., Perkins L. L., Haley N. J., Friedman G. D. Misclassification of smoking status in the CARDIA study: a comparison of self-report with serum cotinine levels. Am J Public Health. 1992 Jan;82(1):33–36. doi: 10.2105/ajph.82.1.33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zwitter M. A personal critique: evidence-based medicine, methodology, and ethics of randomised clinical trials. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2001 Nov;40(2):125–130. doi: 10.1016/s1040-8428(01)00138-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]