Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38371462›Full record

ArticleMethodsX2024

Risk of bias in cross-sectional studies: Protocol for a scoping review of concepts and tools.

Shannon E Kelly, Karima Benkhedda, Stephen P J Brooks, Amanda J MacFarlane, Linda S Greene-Finestone, Becky Skidmore, Tammy J Clifford, George A Wells

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in MethodsX, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

8 authors.

Shannon E KellySchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Karima BenkheddaBureau of Nutritional Sciences, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Stephen P J BrooksBureau of Nutritional Sciences, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Amanda J MacFarlaneDepartment of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Linda S Greene-FinestoneApplied Research Division, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Becky SkidmoreIndependent Information Scientist, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Tammy J CliffordSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
George A WellsSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cross-sectional studies are commonly used to study human health and disease, but are especially susceptible to bias. This scoping review aims to identify and describe available tools to assess the risk of bias (RoB) in cross-sectional studies and to compile the key bias concepts relevant to cross-sectional studies into an item bank. Using the JBI scoping review methodology, the strategy to locate relevant RoB concepts and tools is a combination of database searches, prospective review of PROSPERO registry records; and consultation with knowledge users and content experts. English language records will be included if they describe tools, checklists, or instruments which describe or permit assessment of RoB for cross-sectional studies. Systematic reviews will be included if they consider eligible RoB tools or use RoB tools for RoB of cross-sectional studies. All records will be independently screened, selected, and extracted by one researcher and checked by a second. An analytic framework will be used to structure the extraction of data. Results for the scoping review are pending. Results from this scoping review will be used to inform future selection of RoB tools and to consider whether development of a new RoB tool for cross-sectional studies is needed.

Indexed as

Critical appraisalCross-sectionalMethodological qualityRisk of biasScoping reviewScoping review protocolTool

Identifiers

PMID38371462
PMCPMC10874705

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.