Salīdzināt metodes
Apskatiet izvēlētās metodes blakus; rindas, kas atšķiras, ir izceltas.
| Ņūkaslas-Otawas skala novērojumu pētījumu kvalitātes novērtēšanai× | Cochrane riska novērtēšanas rīks 2.0 randomizētiem kontrolētiem pētījumiem× | |
|---|---|---|
| Nozare | Pētniecības metodoloģija | Pētniecības metodoloģija |
| Saime | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Izcelsmes gads≠ | 2000 | 2019 |
| Autors≠ | Wells et al. (Ottawa Hospital Research Institute) | Jonathan Sterne, Julian Higgins (Cochrane Collaboration) |
| Tips≠ | Research team assessment | Clinician-rated / Research team assessment |
| Pirmavots≠ | Wells, G. A., Shea, B., O'Connell, D., Peterson, J., Welch, V., Losos, M., & Tugwell, P. (2000). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Retrieved from Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. link ↗ | Sterne, J. A., Savović, J., Page, M. J., Elbers, R. G., Blencowe, N. S., Boutron, I., ... & Higgins, J. P. (2019). RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 366, l4898. DOI ↗ |
| Citi nosaukumi≠ | NOS | RoB 2.0, RoB 2 |
| Saistītās | 4 | 4 |
| Kopsavilkums≠ | The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) is a widely used tool for assessing the methodological quality of observational studies (case-control and cohort designs) included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Developed by Wells et al. at Ottawa Hospital in 2000, it provides explicit criteria and a star-based scoring system that enables transparent, quantitative comparison of study quality across evidence syntheses. | RoB 2 is the Cochrane Collaboration's updated methodology for assessing the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Published in 2019, it replaced the original Cochrane RoB tool with a more structured, transparent approach using signalling questions and domain-based judgments to evaluate five critical sources of bias. |
| ScholarGateDatu kopa ↗ |
|
|