No clear choice between Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies to assess methodological quality in cross-sectional studies of health-related quality of life and breast cancer.
J Clin Epidemiol
; 120: 94-103, 2020 04.
Article
em En
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-31866469
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES:
The aim of the study was to compare the inter-rater reliability, concurrent validity, completion time, and ease of use of two methodological quality (MQ) assessment tools for cross-sectional studies an adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS). STUDY DESIGN ANDSETTING:
Two raters applied the NOS and AXIS to 63 cross-sectional studies of health-related quality of life and breast cancer.RESULTS:
AXIS demonstrated poor inter-rater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.49) and required more than double the amount of time to complete compared with the NOS, which demonstrated moderate reliability (ICC = 0.73). For concurrent validity, weak and moderate positive relationships existed between NOS and AXIS (rater 1 r = 0.26; rater 2 r = 0.45). Ease of using the tools was affected by the indirectness of MQ assessments, perceived thoroughness of the tools' content, and user experience.CONCLUSION:
This study was the first to assess the psychometric properties of a cross-sectional NOS and AXIS. The results did not support a clear choice between selecting either tool for evaluating MQ in cross-sectional studies.Palavras-chave
Texto completo:
1
Coleções:
01-internacional
Base de dados:
MEDLINE
Assunto principal:
Qualidade de Vida
/
Pesquisa
/
Neoplasias da Mama
Tipo de estudo:
Observational_studies
/
Prevalence_studies
/
Risk_factors_studies
Limite:
Female
/
Humans
Idioma:
En
Ano de publicação:
2020
Tipo de documento:
Article