Unified tools for assessing the methodological quality of intervention effects in rapid reviews: a scoping review.
7 affiliations
- 1JBI Wales Centre For Evidence Based Care, School of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK. [email protected].
- 2National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (NCCMT), Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence & Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
- 3JBI Wales Centre For Evidence Based Care, School of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK.
- 4National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (NCCMT), School of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
- 5Specialist Unit for Review Evidence (SURE), Cardiff University Library Service, Cardiff, Wales, UK.
- 6North Wales Medical School, College of Medicine and Health, Bangor University, Bangor, Wales, UK.
- 7School of Nursing and Midwifery, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Abstract
Background
Evaluating the methodological quality of primary studies is a crucial aspect of evidence syntheses, such as rapid reviews. Rapid reviews often include both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies (NRSIs) requiring multiple design-specific quality assessment tools. This can complicate workflows and reduce efficiency. Unified tools, designed to assess methodological quality across diverse study designs, may offer a more consistent and streamlined approach. This scoping review aimed to comprehensively identify and describe unified tools for assessing methodological quality across both RCTs and NRSIs.Methods
The review followed JBI scoping review methodology and was reported in line with PRISMA-ScR guidance. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and CINAHL (EBSCO) from 1998 to 2024, alongside grey literature searches, citation tracking, targeted website searches, and consultation with experts in evidence synthesis. Study selection was performed by two independent reviewers. A tool was defined as any structured instrument developed to support users in assessing methodological quality.Results
A total of 55 publications were included, identifying 29 unique unified tools. These were categorised by structure: scales (n = 14), checklists with an additional summary judgement (n = 7), simple checklists (n = 5), domain-based tools (n = 2), and other tools (n = 1). All tools were designed to assess both RCTs and NRSIs, with many also applicable to additional study designs, including descriptive studies (n = 15), case reports or series (n = 9), qualitative research (n = 7), and systematic reviews (n = 3). Unified tools were developed using a mixture of approaches including literature reviewing (n = 25), expert consensus (n = 20), and stakeholder consultations (n = 17) and pilot testing (n = 17). Evaluation of psychometric properties was conducted to varying levels across different domains of validity and reliability.Conclusion
This review identified a diverse set of unified tools for assessing methodological quality across both RCTs and NRSIs. However, variation in tool structure, the availability of accompanying guidance, and the limited evaluation of psychometric properties, particularly inter-rater reliability and criterion validity, indicate potential issues for adoption in rapid reviews. Unified tools need further refinement and validation to be embedded in the rapid review process.Systematic review registration
https://osf.io/nyteu/.
Related
- Spin and Methodological Quality in Systematic Reviews of Decompression Timing for Central Cord Syndrome
- Methodological Quality of Heart Failure Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in the Era of AMSTAR-2 (a Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews): A Pre-registered Repeat Cross-Sectional Survey.
- Evidence quality assessment of traditional Chinese medicine and integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine for acute upper respiratory infection in children: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses
- Methodological quality and clinical applicability of long COVID guidelines and scientific statements: a systematic review using AGREE II and AGREE-REX
- Assessing the robustness of meta-analyses to variability in the frequency and timing of postoperative delirium assessment – a novel methodological approach
BibTeX
@article{edwards2026unified,
title = {{Unified tools for assessing the methodological quality of intervention effects in rapid reviews: a scoping review.}},
author = {Deborah Edwards and Emily C Clark and Judit Csontos and Maureen Dobbins and Elizabeth Gillen and Juliet Hounsome and Sarah E Neil-Sztramko and Ruth Lewis and Mala Mann and Gillian Prue},
journal = {Systematic reviews},
year = {2026},
month = jul,
doi = {10.1186/s13643-026-03270-2},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42902408},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Unified tools for assessing the methodological quality of intervention effects in rapid reviews: a scoping review.
AU - Deborah Edwards
AU - Emily C Clark
AU - Judit Csontos
AU - Maureen Dobbins
AU - Elizabeth Gillen
AU - Juliet Hounsome
AU - Sarah E Neil-Sztramko
AU - Ruth Lewis
AU - Mala Mann
AU - Gillian Prue
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/07/01
JO - Systematic reviews
DO - 10.1186/s13643-026-03270-2
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42902408
AB - Background Evaluating the methodological quality of primary studies is a crucial aspect of evidence syntheses, such as rapid reviews. Rapid reviews often include both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies (NRSIs) requiring multiple design-specific quality assessment tools. This can complicate workflows and reduce efficiency. Unified tools, designed to assess methodological quality across diverse study designs, may offer a more consistent and streamlined approach. This scoping review aimed to comprehensively identify and describe unified tools for assessing methodological quality across both RCTs and NRSIs.Methods The review followed JBI scoping review methodology and was reported in line with PRISMA-ScR guidance. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and CINAHL (EBSCO) from 1998 to 2024, alongside grey literature searches, citation tracking, targeted website searches, and consultation with experts in evidence synthesis. Study selection was performed by two independent reviewers. A tool was defined as any structured instrument developed to support users in assessing methodological quality.Results A total of 55 publications were included, identifying 29 unique unified tools. These were categorised by structure: scales (n = 14), checklists with an additional summary judgement (n = 7), simple checklists (n = 5), domain-based tools (n = 2), and other tools (n = 1). All tools were designed to assess both RCTs and NRSIs, with many also applicable to additional study designs, including descriptive studies (n = 15), case reports or series (n = 9), qualitative research (n = 7), and systematic reviews (n = 3). Unified tools were developed using a mixture of approaches including literature reviewing (n = 25), expert consensus (n = 20), and stakeholder consultations (n = 17) and pilot testing (n = 17). Evaluation of psychometric properties was conducted to varying levels across different domains of validity and reliability.Conclusion This review identified a diverse set of unified tools for assessing methodological quality across both RCTs and NRSIs. However, variation in tool structure, the availability of accompanying guidance, and the limited evaluation of psychometric properties, particularly inter-rater reliability and criterion validity, indicate potential issues for adoption in rapid reviews. Unified tools need further refinement and validation to be embedded in the rapid review process.Systematic review registration https://osf.io/nyteu/.
SN - 2046-4053
ER -