title: Appraising the methodological quality of cadaveric studies: validation of the QUACS scale.
abstract: Although systematic reviews are conducted in the field of anatomical research, no instruments exist for the assessment of study quality. Thus, our objective was to develop a valid tool that reliably assesses the methodological quality of observational cadaveric studies. The QUACS scale (QUality Appraisal for Cadaveric Studies) was developed using an expert consensus process. It consists of a 13-item checklist addressing the design, conduct and report of cadaveric dissection studies. To evaluate inter-rater reliability, a blinded investigator obtained an initial pool of 120 observational cadaveric studies. Sixty-eight of them were selected randomly according to sample size calculations. Three independent researchers rated each publication by means of the QUACS scale. The reliability of the total score was estimated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). To assess agreement among individual items, margin-free kappa values were calculated. For construct validity, two experts (an anatomist and an experienced physician) categorized the quality of 15 randomly selected studies as 'excellent' (4 points), 'moderate to good' (3 points), poor to moderate' (2 points) or 'poor' (1 point). Kendall's tau rank correlation was used to compare the expert ratings with the scores on the QUACS scale. An evaluation of feasibility was carried out during the reliability analysis. All three raters recorded the duration of quality appraisal for each article. Means were used to describe average time exposure. The ICC for the total score was 0.87 (95% confidence interval: 0.82-0.92; P < 0.0001). For individual items, margin-free kappa values ranged between 0.56 and 0.96 with an agreement of 69-97% among the three raters. Kendall's tau B coefficient of the association between expert ratings and the results obtained with the QUACS scale was 0.69 (P < 0.01). Required rating time per article was 5.4 ± 1.6 min. The QUACS scale is highly reliable and exhibits strong construct validity. Thus, it can confidently be applied in assessing the methodological quality of observational dissection studies.
authors.affiliation: Department of Sports Medicine, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Wilke
authors.affiliation: Department of Sports Medicine, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
authors.forename: F
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Krause
authors.affiliation: Department of Sports Medicine, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Niederer
authors.affiliation: Department of Sports Medicine, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
authors.forename: T
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Engeroff
authors.affiliation: Department of Anatomy (II), Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
authors.forename: F
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Nürnberger
authors.affiliation: Department of Sports Medicine, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
authors.forename: L
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Vogt
authors.affiliation: Department of Sports Medicine, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
authors.forename: W
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Banzer
mesh_terms: D000715:Anatomy / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards*; D002102:Cadaver; D000068598:Data Accuracy; D003625:Data Collection; D004210:Dissection / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards*; D012107:Research Design / Q000592:standards*
keywords: anatomical study; dissection study; methodological quality
references.citation: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010 Apr;19(3):399-405
references.pmid: 20056450
references.citation: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009 Feb;129(2):227-35
references.pmid: 18953550
references.citation: Arthroscopy. 2013 Jul;29(7):1235-42
references.pmid: 23591382
references.citation: Clin Anat. 2014 May;27(4):610-21
references.pmid: 24302513
references.citation: Clin Anat. 2009 May;22(4):436-50
references.pmid: 19306318
references.citation: Phys Ther. 2003 Aug;83(8):713-21
references.pmid: 12882612
references.citation: J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2009 Jul;13(3):255-61
references.pmid: 19524850
references.citation: Anat Sci Int. 2015 Jun;90(3):144-60
references.pmid: 24801385
references.citation: Clin Anat. 2010 Jan;23(1):8-17
references.pmid: 19998490
references.citation: J Anat. 2011 Mar;218(3):336-41
references.pmid: 21323916
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Jan;64(1):96-106
references.pmid: 21130355
references.citation: J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2009 Jan;13(1):53-62
references.pmid: 19118793
references.citation: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009 Mar;17(3):213-9
references.pmid: 19139847
references.citation: Stat Med. 2002 May 15;21(9):1331-5
references.pmid: 12111881
references.citation: Clin Anat. 2011 Apr;24(3):350-61
references.pmid: 21433082
references.citation: J Anat. 2010 Nov;217(5):475-87
references.pmid: 20840351
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Nov 15;35(24):E1373-80
references.pmid: 21030891
references.citation: Clin Anat. 2011 Oct;24(7):903-10
references.pmid: 21538570
references.citation: Phys Ther. 2006 Jun;86(6):817-24
references.pmid: 16737407
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;62(10):1013-20
references.pmid: 19230606
references.citation: J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2001 Feb;31(2):70-80
references.pmid: 11232741
references.citation: Surg Radiol Anat. 2007 Mar;29(2):173-80
references.pmid: 17318286
references.citation: Clin Anat. 2012 Sep;25(6):697-708
references.pmid: 22109658
references.citation: Phys Ther. 2008 Feb;88(2):156-75
references.pmid: 18073267
references.citation: Clin Anat. 2012 Mar;25(2):158-67
references.pmid: 21739475
references.citation: BMJ Open. 2012 Jul 31;2(4):null
references.pmid: 22855629
references.citation: Knee. 2012 Dec;19(6):738-45
references.pmid: 23022245
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 2001 Jul;54(7):651-4
references.pmid: 11438404
references.citation: Control Clin Trials. 1996 Feb;17(1):1-12
references.pmid: 8721797
references.citation: Surg Radiol Anat. 2015 Jan;37(1):3-9
references.pmid: 24849464
references.citation: Surg Radiol Anat. 2009 Jan;31(1):35-42
references.pmid: 18663404
references.citation: J Anat. 2013 Dec;223(6):665-76
references.pmid: 24028383
references.citation: Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
references.pmid: 843571
references.citation: Control Clin Trials. 1999 Oct;20(5):448-52
references.pmid: 10503804
references.citation: J Foot Ankle Surg. 2007 Mar-Apr;46(2):101-8
references.pmid: 17331869
references.citation: Arthroscopy. 2012 May;28(5):728-34
references.pmid: 22301359
references.citation: ScientificWorldJournal. 2013 Nov 07;2013:310348
references.pmid: 24367240
references.citation: J Hand Surg Am. 2011 Dec;36(12):1926-35
references.pmid: 22051230
references.citation: Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2006 Mar;88(2):116-21
references.pmid: 16551396
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Aug;63(8):920-5
references.pmid: 20171839
references.citation: Ital J Anat Embryol. 2011;116(1):45-51
references.pmid: 21898973
references.citation: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011 Dec;19 Suppl 1:S101-8
references.pmid: 21584719
references.citation: Med Educ. 2006 Mar;40(3):243-53
references.pmid: 16483327