OBJECTIVES: To consider methods and related evidence for evaluating bias in non-
randomised intervention studies. DATA SOURCES: Systematic reviews and methodological …

Background Assessing quality and susceptibility to bias is essential when interpreting
primary research and conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Tools for …

The Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (AHFMR) health technology
assessment initiative series commenced in March 2000 with “A framework for regional …

Most systematic reviews rely substantially on the assessment of the methodological quality
of the individual trials. The aim of this study was to obtain consensus among experts about a …

ContextAlthough it is widely recommended that clinical trials undergo some type of quality
review, the number and variety of quality assessment scales that exist make it unclear how …

Background and Purpose The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)
is commonly evaluated in order to assess the risk of biased estimates of treatment effects …

Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is important and relatively new.
Quality gives us an estimate of the likelihood that the results are a valid estimate of the truth …

Health care decisions are increasingly being made on research-based evidence rather than
on expert opinion or clinical experience alone. Systematic reviews represent a rigorous …

Objective: Many studies have investigated the relationship between periodontal and
cardiovascular diseases but their results are heterogeneous. Meta-analyses were …

Background and Purpose A research synthesis was performed to (1) critically review
controlled studies evaluating effects of different intensities of stroke rehabilitation in terms of …