Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: comparing reviewers’ to authors’ assessments
University of Toronto · McMaster University
Abstract
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.
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
- FWCI
- 28.67
- Percentile
- 100%
- References
- 12
Authors
3Topics & keywords
- Interquartile range
- Confidence interval
- Medicine
- Observational study
- Systematic review
- MEDLINE
- Reliability (semiconductor)
- Cohort study
- No poverty