Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32111253›Full record

ReviewMilitary Medical Research2020

Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better?

Lin-Lu Ma, Yun-Yun Wang, Zhi-Hua Yang, Di Huang, Hong Weng, Xian-Tao Zeng

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Military Medical Research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 951 papers, 111 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
951citing papers in PubMed, 111 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

951 citing papers in PubMed, 111 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Association of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists and Suicidality: A Systematic Review.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2026
    Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

891 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Lin-Lu MaCenter for Evidence-Based and Translational Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital, Wuhan University, 169 Donghu Road, Wuchang District, Wuhan, 430071, Hubei, China.
Yun-Yun WangCenter for Evidence-Based and Translational Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital, Wuhan University, 169 Donghu Road, Wuchang District, Wuhan, 430071, Hubei, China.
Zhi-Hua YangCenter for Evidence-Based and Translational Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital, Wuhan University, 169 Donghu Road, Wuchang District, Wuhan, 430071, Hubei, China.
Di HuangCenter for Evidence-Based and Translational Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital, Wuhan University, 169 Donghu Road, Wuchang District, Wuhan, 430071, Hubei, China.
Hong WengCenter for Evidence-Based and Translational Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital, Wuhan University, 169 Donghu Road, Wuchang District, Wuhan, 430071, Hubei, China.
Xian-Tao ZengCenter for Evidence-Based and Translational Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital, Wuhan University, 169 Donghu Road, Wuchang District, Wuhan, 430071, Hubei, China. zengxiantao1128@163.com.ORCID 0000-0003-1262-725X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment is an important step before study initiation usage. Therefore, accurately judging study type is the first priority, and the choosing proper tool is also important. In this review, we introduced methodological quality assessment tools for randomized controlled trial (including individual and cluster), animal study, non-randomized interventional studies (including follow-up study, controlled before-and-after study, before-after/ pre-post study, uncontrolled longitudinal study, interrupted time series study), cohort study, case-control study, cross-sectional study (including analytical and descriptive), observational case series and case reports, comparative effectiveness research, diagnostic study, health economic evaluation, prediction study (including predictor finding study, prediction model impact study, prognostic prediction model study), qualitative study, outcome measurement instruments (including patient - reported outcome measure development, content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, cross-cultural validity/ measurement invariance, reliability, measurement error, criterion validity, hypotheses testing for construct validity, and responsiveness), systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline. The readers of our review can distinguish the types of medical studies and choose appropriate tools. In one word, comprehensively mastering relevant knowledge and implementing more practices are basic requirements for correctly assessing the methodological quality.

Indexed as

BiasAnimalsHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsResearchResearch DesignAppraisal toolCritical appraisalInterventional studyMethodological qualityMethodology checklistObservational studyOutcome measurement instrumentQualitative studyQuality assessmentRisk of bias

Identifiers

PMID32111253
PMCPMC7049186

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.