Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27932357›Full record

ReviewAge and ageing2017

Using quality assessment tools to critically appraise ageing research: a guide for clinicians.

Jennifer Kirsty Harrison, James Reid, Terry J Quinn, Susan Deborah Shenkin

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Age and ageing, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 19 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 19 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 19 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 90 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Guideline
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Neuroimaging correlates of post-stroke fatigue: A systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society · 2023
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Head-Out Water-Based Protocols to Assess Cardiorespiratory Fitness-Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Jennifer Kirsty HarrisonUniversity of Edinburgh,Centre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology & The Alzheimer Scotland Dementia Research Centre , Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
James ReidQueen Elizabeth University Hospital, Medicine for the Elderly , Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Terry J QuinnUniversity of Glasgow, Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences , Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Susan Deborah ShenkinUniversity of Edinburgh, Geriatric Medicine, Department of Clinical and Surgical Sciences, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Alzheimer Scotland · GBQueen Elizabeth University Hospital · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GBUniversity of Glasgow · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K026992/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence based medicine tells us that we should not accept published research at face value. Even research from established teams published in the highest impact journals can have methodological flaws, biases and limited generalisability. The critical appraisal of research studies can seem daunting, but tools are available to make the process easier for the non-specialist. Understanding the language and process of quality assessment is essential when considering or conducting research, and is also valuable for all clinicians who use published research to inform their clinical practice.We present a review written specifically for the practising geriatrician. This considers how quality is defined in relation to the methodological conduct and reporting of research. Having established why quality assessment is important, we present and critique tools which are available to standardise quality assessment. We consider five study designs: RCTs, non-randomised studies, observational studies, systematic reviews and diagnostic test accuracy studies. Quality assessment for each of these study designs is illustrated with an example of published cognitive research. The practical applications of the tools are highlighted, with guidance on their strengths and limitations. We signpost educational resources and offer specific advice for use of these tools.We hope that all geriatricians become comfortable with critical appraisal of published research and that use of the tools described in this review - along with awareness of their strengths and limitations - become a part of teaching, journal clubs and practice.

Indexed as

Data AccuracyBiomedical ResearchEvidence-Based MedicineGeriatricsHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicQuality ControlQuality Indicators, Health CareResearch Designassessmentcritical appraisalmethodologyolder peoplequalityreporting

Identifiers

PMID27932357
PMCPMC5405751
OpenAlexW2587395835

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.