Development of a quality assessment tool for systematic reviews of observational studies (QATSO) of HIV prevalence in men having sex with men and associated risk behaviours

BackgroundSystematic reviews based on the critical appraisal of observational and analytic studies on HIV prevalence and risk factors for HIV transmission among men having sex with men are very useful for health care decisions and planning. Such appraisal is particularly difficult, however, as the quality assessment tools available for use with observational and analytic studies are poorly established.MethodsWe reviewed the existing quality assessment tools for systematic reviews of observational studies and developed a concise quality assessment checklist to help standardise decisions regarding the quality of studies, with careful consideration of issues such as external and internal validity.ResultsA pilot version of the checklist was developed based on epidemiological principles, reviews of study designs, and existing checklists for the assessment of observational studies. The Quality Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews of Observational Studies (QATSO) Score consists of five items: External validity (1 item), reporting (2 items), bias (1 item) and confounding factors (1 item). Expert opinions were sought and it was tested on manuscripts that fulfil the inclusion criteria of a systematic review. Like all assessment scales, QATSO may oversimplify and generalise information yet it is inclusive, simple and practical to use, and allows comparability between papers.ConclusionA specific tool that allows researchers to appraise and guide study quality of observational studies is developed and can be modified for similar studies in the future.

[1]  P. Croft,et al.  Quality assessment of observational studies is not commonplace in systematic reviews. , 2006, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[2]  Bei-chuan Zhang,et al.  MSM and HIV/AIDS in China , 2005, Cell Research.

[3]  J. Higgins,et al.  Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. , 2007, International journal of epidemiology.

[4]  Matthias Egger,et al.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies , 2007, PLoS medicine.

[5]  I. Olkin,et al.  Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology - A proposal for reporting , 2000 .

[6]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[7]  P. Flowers,et al.  Men who have sex with men (MSM) in public sex environments (PSEs): A systematic review of quantitative literature , 2005, AIDS care.

[8]  D. Colby,et al.  Men who have sex with men and HIV in Vietnam: a review. , 2004, AIDS education and prevention : official publication of the International Society for AIDS Education.

[9]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in Context: Second Edition , 2008 .

[10]  N McKoy,et al.  Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. , 2002, Evidence report/technology assessment.

[11]  S. Pocock,et al.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. , 2007, Preventive medicine.

[12]  N. Black,et al.  The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. , 1998, Journal of epidemiology and community health.

[13]  F. Song,et al.  Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. , 2003, Health technology assessment.

[14]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement , 1999, The Lancet.