4.4 Article

Development and reliability assessment of a new quality appraisal tool for cross-sectional studies using biomarker data (BIOCROSS)

期刊

BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
卷 18, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12874-018-0583-x

关键词

BIOCROSS; Quality appraisal; Evaluation tool; Cross-sectional studies

资金

  1. Open Access Fund of the Leibniz Association
  2. German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbruecke

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundBiomarker-based analyses are commonly reported in observational epidemiological studies; however currently there are no specific study quality assessment tools to assist evaluation of conducted research. Accounting for study design and biomarker measurement would be important for deriving valid conclusions when conducting systematic data evaluation.MethodsWe developed a study quality assessment tool designed specifically to assess biomarker-based cross-sectional studies (BIOCROSS) and evaluated its inter-rater reliability. The tool includes 10-items covering 5 domains: Study rational', Design/Methods', Data analysis', Data interpretation' and Biomarker measurement', aiming to assess different quality features of biomarker cross-sectional studies. To evaluate the inter-rater reliability, 30 studies were distributed among 5 raters and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC-s) were derived from respective ratings.ResultsThe estimated overall ICC between the 5 raters was 0.57 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.38-0.74) indicating a good inter-rater reliability. The ICC-s ranged from 0.11 (95% CI: 0.01-0.27) for the domain Study rational' to 0.56 (95% CI: 0.40-0.72) for the domain Data interpretation'.ConclusionBIOCROSS is a new study quality assessment tool suitable for evaluation of reporting quality from cross-sectional epidemiological studies employing biomarker data. The tool proved to be reliable for use by biomedical scientists with diverse backgrounds and could facilitate comprehensive review of biomarker studies in human research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据