Skip to main content
. 2016 Jun 13;16:281. doi: 10.1186/s12879-016-1636-6

Table 2.

Adapted meta-tool for quality assessment of public health evidence (Meta QAT) from Public Health Ontario [25]

Item Criteria Assessment
Validity a) Are findings presented objectively?
• Clear rationale and justification
• Findings presented and discussed within appropriate context
• Similar to existing literature and if not, reasons explained
• Conflict of interest statement
Yes
No
Unclear
N/A
b) Are the authors conclusions justified?
• Transparency
• Results consistent with those described in discussion
• Conclusions based on empirical findings
Yes
No
Unclear
N/A
Reliability a) Is the research methodology clearly described?
• Study population and surveillance system described
• Can identify the research design
• Methods carried out in a rigorous and transparent manner
Yes
No
Unclear
N/A
b) Is methodology appropriate for the scope of research?a
• Comparison with an appropriate reference standard (i.e. a data source other than notification data)?
o Is the sensitivity of the reference standard described? Are cases verified?
o Is the population base for notifications and supplementary data sources drawn from same catchment area?
o Is there an adequate description of case ascertainment?
o Are cases ascertained for the same time period in both datasets?
• Are the data sources to be compared clearly identified and described/referenced?
• What case definition is used? Is the same definition applied to all data sources?
• Are the methods for linkage described?
o Were the identifiers unique and available?
o How complete was the link? (% linked)
o How accurate was the link? (i.e. were individuals linked who were not supposed to be or vice versa)
o Were duplicate cases identified and removed?
• How precise are results? (confidence interval width)
• Were any statistical measures of agreement used (did authors express level of agreement using a statistic)?
• For capture-recapture methods:
o If dependency between data sources is suspected, are ≥3 or more data sources used, along with log linear modelling methods, to account for this dependency?
Yes
No
Unclear
N/A
c) Is the research methodology free from bias?
• Are there major sources of bias?
• Can the study be reproduced?
Yes
No
Unclear
N/A
d) Are ethics procedures described?
• Approval from ethics review board
• Individual consent
Yes
No
Unclear
N/A
e) Can I be confident about findings?
• Were sources of information quality assessed?
• Any major methodological flaws?
Yes
No
Unclear
N/A
Applicability Can results be applied within the scope of public health?
• Do the results of the study apply to the issue under consideration (i.e. are surveillance systems and supplementary data sources similar to Ontario?)?
Yes
No
Unclear
N/A

aReliability, section b was revised from the original tool based on studies from Doyle et al. (2002) and Pillaye and Clarke (2003), as well as the US CDC’s updated guidelines for evaluating public health surveillance systems [12, 28, 29]