Page 107 - JCTR-11-2

Journal of Clinical and
Translational Research Review of research landscapes and quality

References 12. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T,
Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane Handbook for
1. UNESCO. UNESCO Science Report: Towards 2030. Paris, Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.5, Cochrane;
France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural 2024. Available from https://www.training.cochrane.org/
Organization; 2015. Available from: https://unesdoc. handbook
unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000235406 [Last accessed on
20 Mar 2025]. 13. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane
Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised
2. Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, et al. How to trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.
increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are
set. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):156-165. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5928
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62229-1 14. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2:
A revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic
3. Ioannidis JP, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, et al. Increasing accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529-536.
value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and
analysis. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):166-175. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62227-8 15. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of
AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological
4. Chan AW, Song F, Vickers A, et al. Increasing value and quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol.
reducing waste: Addressing inaccessible research. Lancet. 2007;7:10.
2014;383(9913):257-266.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-10
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62296-5
16. Whiting P, Savovic J, Higgins JP, et al. ROBIS: A new tool
5. Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, et al. Biomedical to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed.
research: Increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;69:225-234.
2014;383(9912):101-104.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62329-6
17. Sterne JA, Hernan MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: A tool
6. Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, et al. Reducing waste for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of
from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919.
Lancet. 2014;383(9913):267-276.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4919
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62228-X
18. Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa
7. Ioannidis JPA. Why most published research findings are Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised
false. PLoS Med. 2005;2(8):e124.
Studies in Meta-Analyses. Ottawa Hospital Research
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004085 Institute; 2011. Available from: https://www.ohri.ca/
programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp [Last accessed
8. Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D’Amico R, et al. Evaluating non- on 2024 Mar 20].
randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess.
2003;7(27):3-10, 1-173. 19. Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist
for the assessment of the methodological quality both
doi: 10.3310/hta7270
of randomised and non-randomised studies of health
9. MacLehose RR, Reeves BC, Harvey IM, Sheldon TA, care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health.
Russell IT, Black AM. A systematic review of comparisons of 1998;52(6):377-384.
effect sizes derived from randomised and non-randomised
studies. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4(34):1-154. doi: 10.1136/jech.52.6.377
20. Viswanathan M, Berkman ND. Development of the RTI
10. Zeng X, Zhang Y, Kwong JS, et al. The methodological
quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical item bank on risk of bias and precision of observational
studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(2):163-178.
practice guideline: A systematic review. J Evid Based Med. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.05.008
2015;8(1):2-10.
21. Lo CK, Mertz D, Loeb M. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale:
doi: 10.1111/jebm.12141 Comparing reviewers’ to authors’ assessments. BMC Med
Res Methodol. 2014;14:45.
11. Jiu L, Hartog M, Wang J, et al. Tools for assessing quality of
studies investigating health interventions using real-world doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-45
data: A literature review and content analysis. BMJ Open. 22. Hartling L, Milne A, Hamm MP, et al. Testing the newcastle
2024;14(2):e075173.
ottawa scale showed low reliability between individual
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-075173 reviewers. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(9):982-993.

Volume 11 Issue 2 (2025) 101 doi: 10.36922/jctr.24.00071