This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (39)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Quality of Care  • Evidence-Based Medicine  • Quality of Care, Other  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Randomized Controlled Trial  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

The Quality of Quality Scales

Jesse A. Berlin, ScD; Drummond Rennie, MD

JAMA. 1999;282:1083-1085.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Physicians seeking the best information about particular interventions often turn to the results of meta-analyses. Meta-analyses, if done correctly according to explicit rules, will include all relevant studies that meet specified criteria, even those unpublished, to produce an unbiased estimate of the intervention's worth. If the quality of the component studies of a meta-analysis is poor, then a precise summary of those poor studies is unjustified. Since poor-quality studies sometimes produce systematically different results, for example, larger treatment effects,^1-2 a meta-analysis may not only be deceptively precise, but may yield misleading results. In an attempt to deal directly with issues of study quality, many meta-analyses of therapeutic issues restrict consideration to randomized controlled trials.

Experience has shown, however, that even randomized controlled trials sometimes show bias.^1-3 What has become something of an issue among meta-analysts, is how best to measure study quality and . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Author Affiliations: School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (Dr Berlin), and JAMA, Chicago, Ill (Dr Rennie).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

The Use of Fraction of Exhaled Nitric Oxide in Pulmonary Practice
Lim and Mottram
Chest 2008;133:1232-1242.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The design and assessment of prospective randomised, controlled trials in orthopaedic surgery
Boutron et al.
J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007;89-B:858-863.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review
Lexchin et al.
BMJ 2003;326:1167-1170.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Correlation of Quality Measures With Estimates of Treatment Effect in Meta-analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials
Balk et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2973-2982.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Association of Journal Quality Indicators With Methodological Quality of Clinical Research Articles
Lee et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2805-2808.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Journal Prestige, Publication Bias, and Other Characteristics Associated With Citation of Published Studies in Peer-Reviewed Journals
Callaham et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2847-2850.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Commentary: Toward systematic reviews in epidemiology
Bracken
Int J Epidemiol 2001;30:954-957.
FULL TEXT  

Epoetin Treatment of Anemia Associated With Cancer Therapy: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Controlled Clinical Trials
Seidenfeld et al.
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:1204-1214.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Treatment of Ruptures of the Lateral Ankle Ligaments: A Meta-Analysis
Pijnenburg et al.
JBJS 2000;82:761-761.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology: A Proposal for Reporting
Stroup et al.
JAMA 2000;283:2008-2012.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Quest to Quantify Quality
Fihn
JAMA 2000;283:1740-1742.
FULL TEXT