Unified tools for assessing the methodological quality of intervention effects in rapid reviews: a scoping review

Unified tools for assessing the methodological quality of intervention effects in rapid reviews: a scoping review | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Systematic Review Unified tools for assessing the methodological quality of intervention effects in rapid reviews: a scoping review Deborah Edwards, Emily C Clark, Judit Csontos, Maureen Dobbins, and 6 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8724550/v2 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 2 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Show more versions 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 methodological 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 categorized by structure: scales (n=14), checklists with judgment (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. Of these, 13 focused exclusively on RCTs and NRSIs, while others extended to 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). Reports of pilot testing was identified for 17 unified tools, and 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 interrater 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/ Nursing Methodology appraisal tools quality risk of bias unified framework Full Text Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Supplementary Files AdditionalFile1.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 2 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Show more versions Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8724550","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Systematic Review","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":585567882,"identity":"7011b62f-c502-4680-bd89-7f408b2f40d0","order_by":0,"name":"Deborah Edwards","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1885-9297","institution":"Cardiff University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Deborah","middleName":"","lastName":"Edwards","suffix":""},{"id":585567883,"identity":"8fc0f14d-0a6b-4d0e-ad9a-c970fed9ed1e","order_by":1,"name":"Emily C Clark","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6615-944X","institution":"McMaster University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Emily","middleName":"C","lastName":"Clark","suffix":""},{"id":585567884,"identity":"a10acc2f-fe91-43e3-bff9-8eee7f82d161","order_by":2,"name":"Judit Csontos","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4597-3052","institution":"Cardiff University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Judit","middleName":"","lastName":"Csontos","suffix":""},{"id":585567885,"identity":"3c25adf2-577c-4bc2-8abc-56fa2ecb62ef","order_by":3,"name":"Maureen Dobbins","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1968-6765","institution":"McMaster University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Maureen","middleName":"","lastName":"Dobbins","suffix":""},{"id":585567886,"identity":"4bfb4ead-0339-47f6-ac2c-85ff2209dacb","order_by":4,"name":"Elizabeth Gillen","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3700-3913","institution":"Cardiff University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Elizabeth","middleName":"","lastName":"Gillen","suffix":""},{"id":585567887,"identity":"ffcad830-8427-4477-82a0-f19e98086377","order_by":5,"name":"Juliet Hounsome","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2026-3778","institution":"Cardiff University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Juliet","middleName":"","lastName":"Hounsome","suffix":""},{"id":585567888,"identity":"fca35d5d-9238-4aa5-876e-eeb45abd9b3a","order_by":6,"name":"Sarah E. Neil-Sztramko","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9600-3403","institution":"McMaster University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sarah","middleName":"E.","lastName":"Neil-Sztramko","suffix":""},{"id":585567889,"identity":"cd5fc77a-b707-4a26-9eb0-683816e37f77","order_by":7,"name":"Ruth Lewis","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0745-995X","institution":"Bangor University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ruth","middleName":"","lastName":"Lewis","suffix":""},{"id":585567890,"identity":"572490ae-84bb-4e3c-b161-a21dfe014b09","order_by":8,"name":"Mala Mann","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2554-9265","institution":"Cardiff University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mala","middleName":"","lastName":"Mann","suffix":""},{"id":585567891,"identity":"0bb9f094-ea81-445c-863e-07e90d133be8","order_by":9,"name":"Gillian Prue","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2198-3731","institution":"Queens University Belfast","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Gillian","middleName":"","lastName":"Prue","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-28 18:56:26","currentVersionCode":2,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8724550/v2","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8724550/v2","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":105566083,"identity":"37e472a2-f4cb-4aae-9f6a-a1ab3584e0b3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-27 12:55:16","extension":"pdf","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":840620,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Edwardsetal2026preprintVersion2.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8724550/v2_covered_66ab91ff-edd9-41b3-816f-93038fd2b1bf.pdf"},{"id":105417519,"identity":"c3469c4c-94f5-428d-9030-76db699a11ef","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-25 19:31:44","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":31237,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"AdditionalFile1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8724550/v2/4a42eb7497327b25f2aa0b4a.docx"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"Unified tools for assessing the methodological quality of intervention effects in rapid reviews: a scoping review","fulltext":[],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":true,"hasManuscriptDocX":false,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"Cardiff University","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":true,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":true,"isPdf":true,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Methodology, appraisal tools, quality, risk of bias, unified framework","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8724550/v2","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8724550/v2","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBackground:\u003c/strong\u003e 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 methodological 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.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods:\u003c/strong\u003e 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.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA tool was defined as any structured instrument developed to support users in assessing methodological quality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults:\u003c/strong\u003e A total of 55 publications were included, identifying 29 unique unified tools. These were categorized by structure: scales (n=14), checklists with judgment (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. Of these, 13 focused exclusively on RCTs and NRSIs, while others extended to 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). Reports of pilot testing was identified for 17 unified tools, and evaluation of psychometric properties was conducted to varying levels across different domains of validity and reliability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusion:\u003c/strong\u003e 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 interrater 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.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSystematic review registration: \u003c/strong\u003ehttps://osf.io/nyteu/\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Unified tools for assessing the methodological quality of intervention effects in rapid reviews: a scoping review","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":2,"date":"2026-03-25 19:31:36","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8724550/v2","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}},{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-04 09:25:06","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8724550/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"7339c7b8-5dd2-48b2-a19d-cfcd5b6cc68e","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 25th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":62296915,"name":"Nursing"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-04T09:25:06+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-25 19:31:36","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v2","identity":"rs-8724550","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8724550","identity":"rs-8724550","version":["v2"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}