Appendix D. Quality Assessment Forms

Alaa Rostom; Catherine Dubé; Ann Cranney; Navaaz Saloojee; Richmond Sy; Chantelle Garritty; Margaret Sampson; Li Zhang; Fatemeh Yazdi; Vasil Mamaladze; Irene Pan; Joanne McNeil; David Moher; David Mack; Dilip Patel

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Rostom A, Dubé C, Cranney A, et al. Celiac Disease. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2004 Sep. (Evidence Reports/Technology Assessments, No. 104.)

This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.

This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.

Celiac Disease.

Show details

Contents

< Prev Next >

Appendix D. Quality Assessment Forms

QUADAS Checklist

Item	Yes	No	Unclear
1. Was the spectrum of patients representative of the patients who will receive the test in practice?

2. Were selection criteria clearly described?

3. Is the reference standard likely to correctly classify the target condition?

4. Is the time period between reference standard and index test short enough to be reasonably sure that the target condition did not change between the two tests?

5. Did the whole sample or a random selection of the sample, receive verification using a reference standard of diagnosis?

6. Did patients receive the same reference standard regardless of the index test result?

7. Was the reference standard independent of the index test (i.e. the index test did not form part of the reference standard)?

8a. Was the execution of the index test described in sufficient detail to permit replication of the test?

8b. Was the execution of the reference standard described in sufficient detail to permit its replication?

9a. Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?

9b. Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test?

10. Were the same clinical data available when test results were interpreted as would be available when the test is used in practice?

11. Were uninterpretable/ intermediate test results reported?

12. Were withdrawals from the study explained?

Cross-Sectional/Prevalence Study Quality

Item	Yes	No	Unclear
1) Define the source of information (survey, record review)

2) List inclusion and exclusion criteria for exposed and unexposed subjects (cases and controls) or refer to previous publications

3) Indicate time period used for identifying patients

4) Indicate whether or not subjects were consecutive if not population-based

5) Indicate if evaluators of subjective components of study were masked to other aspects of the status of the participants

6) Describe any assessments undertaken for quality assurance purposes (e.g., test/retest of primary outcome measurements)

7) Explain any patient exclusions from analysis

8) Describe how confounding was assessed and/or controlled.

9) If applicable, explain how missing data were handled in the analysis

10) Summarize patient response rates and completeness of data collection

11) Clarify what follow-up, if any, was expected and the percentage of patients for which incomplete data or follow-up was obtained

Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale: Cohort Studies

Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale: Case Control Studies

Bookshelf ID: NBK35156

Contents

< Prev Next >

PubReader
Print View
Cite this Page
Rostom A, Dubé C, Cranney A, et al. Celiac Disease. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2004 Sep. (Evidence Reports/Technology Assessments, No. 104.) Appendix D. Quality Assessment Forms.