Newcastle–Ottawa scale
In statistics, the Newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS) is a tool used for assessing the quality of non-randomized studies included in a systematic review and/or meta-analyses. Using the tool, each study is judged on eight items, categorized into three groups: the selection of the study groups; the comparability of the groups; and the ascertainment of either the exposure or outcome of interest for case-control or cohort studies respectively. Stars awarded for each quality item serve as a quick visual assessment. Stars are awarded such that the highest quality studies are awarded up to nine stars. The method was developed as a collaboration between the University of Newcastle, Australia, and the University of Ottawa, Canada, using a Delphi process to define variables for data extraction. The scale was then tested on systematic reviews and further refined.[1] Separate tools were developed for cohort and case–control studies. It has also been adapted for prevalence studies.[2][3][4]
Strengths of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale are is that it is relatively quick to use, and its questions can be adapted to the study domain. However there has been shown to be low levels in agreement when multiple reviewers use the Newcastle-Ottowa scale to assess studies.[5]
A 2019 study of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions found the Newcastle-Ottawa scale to be the most commonly used risk-of-bias tool to assess non-randomized studies in systematic reviews that used multiple risk of bias tools.[6]
References
[edit]- ^ Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D'Amico R, Sowden AJ, Sakarovitch C, Song F, et al. (2003). "Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies". Health Technology Assessment. 7 (27): iii–x, 1–173. doi:10.3310/hta7270. PMID 14499048.
- ^ Rotenstein, Lisa S.; Ramos, Marco A.; Torre, Matthew; Segal, J. Bradley; Peluso, Michael J.; Guille, Constance; Sen, Srijan; Mata, Douglas A. (2016-12-06). "Prevalence of Depression, Depressive Symptoms, and Suicidal Ideation Among Medical Students: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis". JAMA. 316 (21): 2214–2236. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.17324. ISSN 1538-3598. PMC 5613659. PMID 27923088.
- ^ Douglas A. Mata, Marco A. Ramos, Narinder Bansal, Rida Khan, Constance Guille, Emanuele Di Angelantonio & Srijan Sen (2015). "Prevalence of Depression and Depressive Symptoms Among Resident Physicians: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis". JAMA. 314 (22): 2373–2383. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.15845. PMC 4866499. PMID 26647259.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Rotenstein, Lisa S.; Torre, Matthew; Ramos, Marco A.; Rosales, Rachael C.; Guille, Constance; Sen, Srijan; Mata, Douglas A. (September 18, 2018). "Prevalence of Burnout Among Physicians: A Systematic Review". JAMA. 320 (11): 1131–1150. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.12777. ISSN 1538-3598. PMC 6233645. PMID 30326495.
- ^ Luchini, Claudio; Stubbs, Brendon; Solmi, Marco; Veronese, Nicola (2017-08-26). "Assessing the quality of studies in meta-analyses: Advantages and limitations of the Newcastle Ottawa Scale". World Journal of Meta-Analysis. 5 (4): 80–84. doi:10.13105/wjma.v5.i4.80.
- ^ Farrah, Kelly; Young, Kelsey; Tunis, Matthew C.; Zhao, Linlu (2019-11-15). "Risk of bias tools in systematic reviews of health interventions: an analysis of PROSPERO-registered protocols". Systematic Reviews. 8 (1): 280. doi:10.1186/s13643-019-1172-8. ISSN 2046-4053. PMC 6857304. PMID 31730014.
External links
[edit]
 | This statistics-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |