Alexandra Moskalewicz1, Mark Oremus2. 1. School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave West, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada. 2. School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave West, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada. Electronic address: moremus@uwaterloo.ca.
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 AND SETTING: 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.
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 AND SETTING: 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.
Authors: Holger J Schünemann; Joanne Khabsa; Karla Solo; Assem M Khamis; Romina Brignardello-Petersen; Amena El-Harakeh; Andrea Darzi; Anisa Hajizadeh; Antonio Bognanni; Anna Bak; Ariel Izcovich; Carlos A Cuello-Garcia; Chen Chen; Ewa Borowiack; Fatimah Chamseddine; Finn Schünemann; Gian Paolo Morgano; Giovanna E U Muti-Schünemann; Guang Chen; Hong Zhao; Ignacio Neumann; Jan Brozek; Joel Schmidt; Layal Hneiny; Leila Harrison; Marge Reinap; Mats Junek; Nancy Santesso; Rayane El-Khoury; Rebecca Thomas; Robby Nieuwlaat; Rosa Stalteri; Sally Yaacoub; Tamara Lotfi; Tejan Baldeh; Thomas Piggott; Yuan Zhang; Zahra Saad; Bram Rochwerg; Dan Perri; Eddy Fan; Florian Stehling; Imad Bou Akl; Mark Loeb; Paul Garner; Stephen Aston; Waleed Alhazzani; Wojciech Szczeklik; Derek K Chu; Elie A Akl Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2020-05-22 Impact factor: 25.391