Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: Different tools to assess the potential risk of bias (RoB) for cross-sectional studies have been developed, but it is unclear whether all pertinent bias concepts are addressed. We aimed to identify RoB concepts applicable to cross-sectional research validity and to explore coverage for each in existing appraisal tools.
METHODS: This scoping review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. We included records of any study design describing or reporting methods, concepts or tools used to consider RoB in health research reported to be descriptive/prevalence survey or analytic/association (cross-sectional) study designs. Synthesis included quantitative and qualitative analysis.
RESULTS: Of the 4556 records screened, 90 were selected for inclusion; 67 (74%) described the development of, or validation process for, appraisal tools, 15 (17%) described methodological content or theory relevant to RoB for cross-sectional studies and 8 (9%) records of methodological systematic reviews. Review of methodological reports identified important RoB concepts for both descriptive/prevalence and analytic/association studies. Tools identified (n = 64 unique tools) were either intended to appraise quality or assess RoB in multiple study designs including cross-sectional studies (n = 21; 33%) or cross-sectional designs alone (n = 43; 67%). Several existing tools were modified (n = 17; 27%) for application to cross-sectional studies. The RoB items most frequently addressed in the RoB tools were validity and reliability of the exposure (53%) or outcome (65%) measurement and representativeness of the study population (59%). Most tools did not consider nonresponse or missingness appropriately or at all.
CONCLUSIONS: Assessing cross-sectional studies involve unique RoB considerations. We identified RoB tools designed for broad applicability across various study designs as well as those specifically tailored for cross-sectional studies. However, none of the identified tools comprehensively address all potential biases pertinent to cross-sectional studies. Our findings indicate a need for continued improvement of RoB tools and suggest that the development of context-specific or more precise tools for this study design may be necessary.
METHODS: This scoping review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. We included records of any study design describing or reporting methods, concepts or tools used to consider RoB in health research reported to be descriptive/prevalence survey or analytic/association (cross-sectional) study designs. Synthesis included quantitative and qualitative analysis.
RESULTS: Of the 4556 records screened, 90 were selected for inclusion; 67 (74%) described the development of, or validation process for, appraisal tools, 15 (17%) described methodological content or theory relevant to RoB for cross-sectional studies and 8 (9%) records of methodological systematic reviews. Review of methodological reports identified important RoB concepts for both descriptive/prevalence and analytic/association studies. Tools identified (n = 64 unique tools) were either intended to appraise quality or assess RoB in multiple study designs including cross-sectional studies (n = 21; 33%) or cross-sectional designs alone (n = 43; 67%). Several existing tools were modified (n = 17; 27%) for application to cross-sectional studies. The RoB items most frequently addressed in the RoB tools were validity and reliability of the exposure (53%) or outcome (65%) measurement and representativeness of the study population (59%). Most tools did not consider nonresponse or missingness appropriately or at all.
CONCLUSIONS: Assessing cross-sectional studies involve unique RoB considerations. We identified RoB tools designed for broad applicability across various study designs as well as those specifically tailored for cross-sectional studies. However, none of the identified tools comprehensively address all potential biases pertinent to cross-sectional studies. Our findings indicate a need for continued improvement of RoB tools and suggest that the development of context-specific or more precise tools for this study design may be necessary.
摘要：
目的：已经开发了用于评估横断面研究的潜在偏倚风险（RoB）的不同工具，但目前尚不清楚是否解决了所有相关的偏见概念。我们旨在确定适用于横断面研究有效性的RoB概念，并探索现有评估工具中每个概念的覆盖范围。
方法：这项范围审查遵循了乔安娜·布里格斯研究所的方法。我们包括任何描述或报告方法的研究设计记录，在健康研究中用于考虑RoB的概念或工具报告为描述性/患病率调查或分析/关联（横断面）研究设计。综合包括定量和定性分析。
结果：在筛选的4,556条记录中，90人被选中纳入；67人(74%)描述了发展，或验证过程，评估工具，15（17％）描述了与RoB相关的方法学内容或理论，用于横断面研究，8（9％）记录了方法学系统综述。方法学报告的审查确定了用于描述性/患病率和分析/关联研究的重要RoB概念。确定的工具（n=64个独特的工具）旨在评估质量或评估多项研究设计中的RoB，包括横断面研究（n=21;33％）或仅横断面设计（n=43;67％）。对几种现有工具进行了修改（n=17；27％），以应用于横断面研究。RoB工具中最常见的RoB项目是暴露（53％）或结果（65％）测量的有效性和可靠性以及研究人群的代表性（59％）。大多数工具都没有适当地或根本没有考虑到无响应或错误。
结论：评估横断面研究涉及独特的偏倚风险（RoB）考虑因素。我们确定了设计用于各种研究设计的广泛适用性的RoB工具，以及专门为横断面研究量身定制的工具。然而,已确定的工具均未全面解决与横断面研究相关的所有潜在偏见.我们的发现表明需要持续改进RoB工具，并建议开发针对此研究设计的特定环境或更精确的工具可能是必要的。
方法：这项范围审查遵循了乔安娜·布里格斯研究所的方法。我们包括任何描述或报告方法的研究设计记录，在健康研究中用于考虑RoB的概念或工具报告为描述性/患病率调查或分析/关联（横断面）研究设计。综合包括定量和定性分析。
结果：在筛选的4,556条记录中，90人被选中纳入；67人(74%)描述了发展，或验证过程，评估工具，15（17％）描述了与RoB相关的方法学内容或理论，用于横断面研究，8（9％）记录了方法学系统综述。方法学报告的审查确定了用于描述性/患病率和分析/关联研究的重要RoB概念。确定的工具（n=64个独特的工具）旨在评估质量或评估多项研究设计中的RoB，包括横断面研究（n=21;33％）或仅横断面设计（n=43;67％）。对几种现有工具进行了修改（n=17；27％），以应用于横断面研究。RoB工具中最常见的RoB项目是暴露（53％）或结果（65％）测量的有效性和可靠性以及研究人群的代表性（59％）。大多数工具都没有适当地或根本没有考虑到无响应或错误。
结论：评估横断面研究涉及独特的偏倚风险（RoB）考虑因素。我们确定了设计用于各种研究设计的广泛适用性的RoB工具，以及专门为横断面研究量身定制的工具。然而,已确定的工具均未全面解决与横断面研究相关的所有潜在偏见.我们的发现表明需要持续改进RoB工具，并建议开发针对此研究设计的特定环境或更精确的工具可能是必要的。
