FZLliuyuignore
They looked at blood loss, hospitalization time and time to normalization of hcg, plus several other less critical outcome measures and scored outcomes using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and MINORS for non-RCTs. Studies were considered high-quality if they scored >50% of the total possible score by NOS or MINORS, as appropriate. This seems a bit arbitrary and unwarranted and integrates parallel semi-quantitative scoring systems that have no inherent comparability.
这个是审稿意见,我就是纳入了回顾性病例对照、队列研究,以及单臂的回顾性研究,前面两种采用NOS评分,后面的采用MINORS评分,自己划了50%的线,审稿意见如上。不知道大家知不知道这两个评分系统该如何划定高中低分该怎么算?
huarenqiang5
NOS评价包括研究人群选择(selection)、可比性(comparability)、暴露(exposure)/结果(outcome)评价。NOS对文献质量的评价采用了星级系统的半量化原则,除 comparability最高可评2星外,其余条目最高可评1星,满分为9颗星,分值越高提示研究质量越高。
土井挞克树
0-4分为低质量研究,5-9分为高质量研究
Dr_劉医生
量表是有默认评分的,不能自己划线。NOS量表满分10分,1-3、4-6和7-9分分别被定义为低、中和高质量。
FZLliuyuignore
NOS评分有自己的划分?能提供相关文献嘛?