Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41994166›Full record

ArticleMethodsX2026

A critical appraisal tool for interdisciplinary study designs: Conceptual grounding and application in healthy ageing research.

Andreea Alexandra Piriu, Maria Vittoria Bufali, Giulia Cappellaro, Amelia Compagni, Aleksandra Torbica

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MethodsX, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Andreea Alexandra PiriuBocconi University, Via Roentgen 1, 20136 Milan, Italy.
Maria Vittoria BufaliBocconi University, Via Roentgen 1, 20136 Milan, Italy.
Giulia CappellaroDepartment of Social and Political Sciences, Bocconi University, Via Roentgen 1, 20136 Milan, Italy.
Amelia CompagniDepartment of Social and Political Sciences, Bocconi University, Via Roentgen 1, 20136 Milan, Italy.
Aleksandra TorbicaDepartment of Social and Political Sciences, Bocconi University, Via Roentgen 1, 20136 Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Interdisciplinary research often employs heterogeneous study designs that cannot be consistently addressed by existing quality appraisal frameworks. Established tools (CASP, JBI, EPHPP, STROBE) provide robust criteria, but no single framework adequately captures the methodological diversity typical of interdisciplinary work. Originating in a systematic review of 55 empirical studies on healthy ageing (Piriu et al., 2025), this article introduces the Nine-Item Quality Appraisal Toolkit (9-QuAT), a methodological innovation for critically assessing quality across diverse interdisciplinary study designs. The toolkit incorporates criteria from established frameworks, ensuring conceptual grounding, and extends them to include dimensions such as integration of methods, sample representativeness, and contribution to knowledge. Each criterion is operationalized in a binary scoring system, providing a structured yet flexible approach that enables reproducible and transparent assessment across heterogeneous designs, including mixed-methods, observational, descriptive, and exploratory studies. In doing so, the tool offers both a multidimensional research evaluation method and a transferable framework for interdisciplinary health and social research where traditional appraisal tools fall short. The article contributes along the following lines:•Introduces a nine-item binary scoring toolkit for appraising interdisciplinary study designs.•Extends established appraisal frameworks to capture interdisciplinarity and translational relevance.•Demonstrates reliability, conceptual validity, and transferability across domains.

Indexed as

Critical appraisalFunctional abilityHealthy ageingHeterogeneous study designInterdisciplinary methodologyIntrinsic capacityMixed-methods researchMultidimensional research evaluationPublic healthQuality assessment

Identifiers

PMID41994166
PMCPMC13080469

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.