articleBMC Medical Research MethodologyApr 1, 2014GOLD OA

Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: comparing reviewers’ to authors’ assessments

University of Toronto · McMaster University

PubMed
Indexed incrossrefdoajpubmed

Abstract

Background

Lack of appropriate reporting of methodological details has previously been shown to distort risk of bias assessments in randomized controlled trials. The same might be true for observational studies. The goal of this study was to compare the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) assessment for risk of bias between reviewers and authors of cohort studies included in a published systematic review on risk factors for severe outcomes in patients infected with influenza.

Methods

Cohort studies included in the systematic review and published between 2008-2011 were included. The corresponding or first authors completed a survey covering all NOS items. Results were compared with the NOS assessment applied by reviewers of the systematic review. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using kappa (K) statistics.

Citation impact

2,446
total citations
FWCI
28.67
Percentile
100%
References
12
Citations per year

Authors

3

Topics & keywords

Keywords
  • Interquartile range
  • Confidence interval
  • Medicine
  • Observational study
  • Systematic review
  • MEDLINE
  • Reliability (semiconductor)
  • Cohort study
UN Sustainable Development Goals
  • No poverty
No related works found for this paper.

Funding