Tatyana Shamliyan^{1, 2,}, Mohammed T. Ansari³, Gowri Raman⁴, Nancy Berkman⁵, Mark Grant⁶, Gail Janes⁷, Margaret Maglione⁸, David Moher³, Mona Nasser⁹, Karen Robinson¹⁰, Jodi Segal¹⁰, Sophia Tsouros³

We aimed to develop quality checklists for observational non-therapeutic studies. Based on a systematic review of current practices of quality assessment of observational studies, collaborating co-authors from Evidence-based Practice Centers and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention developed a new checklist for studies examining incidence and prevalence of chronic conditions, evaluated face and content validity, and discrimination validity to distinguish reporting from methodological quality. This new checklist is available in text format or as a relational database to produce standardized reports with flaws in reporting quality, external (six criteria), and internal (five criteria) validity of the studies. Study and hypotheses (subgroups) level analyses are possible with predetermined in protocol templates criteria of major and minor flaws. Consensus around justified research specific methodological standards and reliability tests should precede quality evaluation of primary studies to assure confidence in quality assessment. To be effective, policy decisions should be made based on comprehensive systematic evidence reviews that include transparent, standardized quality appraisals. Implementation of the developed checklists would increase transparency and quality of research leading to effective informed decisions in health care.

risk factors, morbidity, reproducibility of results, validation studies, bias (epidemiology), quality control, review literature as topic