| Study design(s) targeted by the tool | Observational studies (mixed designs)observational-studies Randomized controlled trials (RCT)randomized-controlled-trial-rct |
|---|---|
| Additional details on designs | NA |
| Tool area | Health |
| Link to the tool | Access the paper reporting the Down & Black tool |
Details | |
| Website | |
| Primary publication | Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 1998;52(6) |
| DOI | 10.1136/jech.52.6.377 |
| Guidance document | |
| Training | None known – please contact us if you are aware of any training that should be listed here. |
| Language | English |
| Translations | None known – please contact us if you are aware of any translations that should be listed here |
| Record last updated | 15/08/2023 |
Related tools and Publications | |
| Previous versions | None |
| Updated versions | None |
| Related tools | None |
| Evaluations | None known – please contact us if you are aware of any evaluations that should be listed here |
| Other publications | None known – please contact us if you are aware of any publications that should be listed here |
Key Criteria | |
| Focuses on risk of bias, or makes a distinction between items that assess risk of bias and other aspects of study quality | No |
| Offers a method to reach either a domain specific or overall assessment of risk of bias | Yes |
| Used in at least one review that none of the tool authors were co-authors on or is an update to a previously recommended LATITUDES key tool | Yes |
| Tool development involving a range of stakeholders from different disciplines (e.g. methodologists, statisticians, clinicians) | No |
| Avoids recommending use of summary numerical quality scores | No |
