Development of the anatomical quality assessment (AQUA) tool for the quality assessment of anatomical studies included in meta-analyses and systematic reviews - PubMed (original) (raw)
doi: 10.1002/ca.22799. Epub 2016 Nov 18.
Affiliations
- PMID: 27718281
- DOI: 10.1002/ca.22799
Development of the anatomical quality assessment (AQUA) tool for the quality assessment of anatomical studies included in meta-analyses and systematic reviews
Brandon Michael Henry et al. Clin Anat. 2017 Jan.
Abstract
Critical appraisal of anatomical studies is essential before the evidence from them undergoes meta-epidemiological synthesis. However, no instrument for appraising anatomical studies with inherent applicability to different study designs is available. We aim to develop a generic yet comprehensive tool for assessing the quality of anatomical studies using a formal consensus method. The study steering committee formulated an initial conceptual design and generated items for a preliminary tool on the basis of a literature review and expert opinion. A Delphi procedure was then adopted to assess the validity of the preliminary tool. Feedback from the Delphi panelists was used to improve it. The Delphi procedure involved 12 experts in anatomical research. It comprised two rounds, after which unanimous consensus was reached about the items to be included. The preliminary tool consisted of 20 items, which were phrased as signaling questions and organized into five domains: 1. Aim and subject characteristics, 2. Study design, 3. Characterization of methods, 4. Descriptive anatomy, and 5. Results reporting. Each domain was set to end with a risk of bias question. Following round 1, some of the items underwent major revision, although agreement was reached regarding inclusion of all the domains and signaling questions in the preliminary tool. The tool was revised only for minor language inaccuracies after round 2. The AQUA Tool was designed to assess the quality and reliability of anatomical studies. It is currently undergoing a validation process. Clin. Anat. 30:6-13, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Keywords: anatomy; bias; quality assessment; tool; validity.
© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Similar articles
- Development of the Anatomical Quality Assurance (AQUA) checklist: Guidelines for reporting original anatomical studies.
Tomaszewski KA, Henry BM, Kumar Ramakrishnan P, Roy J, Vikse J, Loukas M, Tubbs RS, Walocha JA. Tomaszewski KA, et al. Clin Anat. 2017 Jan;30(1):14-20. doi: 10.1002/ca.22800. Epub 2016 Nov 25. Clin Anat. 2017. PMID: 27801507 - Development of a quality-assessment tool for experimental bruxism studies: reliability and validity.
Dawson A, Raphael KG, Glaros A, Axelsson S, Arima T, Ernberg M, Farella M, Lobbezoo F, Manfredini D, Michelotti A, Svensson P, List T. Dawson A, et al. J Orofac Pain. 2013 Spring;27(2):111-22. doi: 10.11607/jop.1065. J Orofac Pain. 2013. PMID: 23630683 - The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews.
Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. Whiting P, et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003 Nov 10;3:25. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-3-25. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003. PMID: 14606960 Free PMC article. - Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic Criteria.
Evers S, Goossens M, de Vet H, van Tulder M, Ament A. Evers S, et al. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005 Spring;21(2):240-5. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005. PMID: 15921065 Review. - Improving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool: a modified e-Delphi study.
Hong QN, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, Dagenais P, Gagnon MP, Griffiths F, Nicolau B, O'Cathain A, Rousseau MC, Vedel I. Hong QN, et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Jul;111:49-59.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.008. Epub 2019 Mar 22. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019. PMID: 30905698 Review.
Cited by
- Prevalence of the Retro-Renal Colon: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Implications for Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy.
Kipkorir V, Cheruiyot I, Ongidi I, Nyaanga FK, Neema B, Otieno EH, Baskaran RR, Srichawla BS, Biswas J, Dhali GK, Dhali A. Kipkorir V, et al. Int J Gen Med. 2022 Nov 21;15:8275-8283. doi: 10.2147/IJGM.S389682. eCollection 2022. Int J Gen Med. 2022. PMID: 36438019 Free PMC article. Review. - Clinical Anatomy of the Posterior Meniscofemoral Ligament of Wrisberg: An Original MRI Study, Meta-analysis, and Systematic Review.
Pękala PA, Łazarz DP, Rosa MA, Pękala JR, Baginski A, Gobbi A, Wojciechowski W, Tomaszewski KA, LaPrade RF. Pękala PA, et al. Orthop J Sports Med. 2021 Feb 22;9(2):2325967120973195. doi: 10.1177/2325967120973195. eCollection 2021 Feb. Orthop J Sports Med. 2021. PMID: 33748297 Free PMC article. Review. - Trabecular bone microstructure parameters as predictors for chronological age: a systematic review.
Tabassum A, Singh MKC, Ibrahim N, Sanjeevan V, Yusof MYPM. Tabassum A, et al. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2024 Aug 5. doi: 10.1007/s12024-024-00864-x. Online ahead of print. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2024. PMID: 39098862 Review. - Inconsistent descriptions of lumbar multifidus morphology: A scoping review.
Hofste A, Soer R, Hermens HJ, Wagner H, Oosterveld FGJ, Wolff AP, Groen GJ. Hofste A, et al. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020 May 19;21(1):312. doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-03257-7. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020. PMID: 32429944 Free PMC article. Review. - The Female Pelvic Floor Fascia Anatomy: A Systematic Search and Review.
Roch M, Gaudreault N, Cyr MP, Venne G, Bureau NJ, Morin M. Roch M, et al. Life (Basel). 2021 Aug 30;11(9):900. doi: 10.3390/life11090900. Life (Basel). 2021. PMID: 34575049 Free PMC article. Review.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical