IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v14y2026i1p4-d1831571.html

The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for Assessing the Quality of Studies in Systematic Reviews

Author

Listed:
  • Emanuela Gualdi-Russo

    (Department of Neuroscience and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Pharmacy and Prevention, University of Ferrara, 44121 Ferrara, Italy)

  • Luciana Zaccagni

    (Department of Neuroscience and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Pharmacy and Prevention, University of Ferrara, 44121 Ferrara, Italy
    Center for Exercise Science and Sports, University of Ferrara, 44123 Ferrara, Italy)

Abstract

Secondary research is a cornerstone of health sciences, with substantial implications for clinical practice and health policy. Within the systematic review process, a key step is assessing study quality and risk of bias. Among the tools available for evaluating observational studies, the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) holds a prominent position and is widely applied in medical research. However, ambiguities and excessive subjectivity have been noted in its application. In this commentary, we discuss the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale guidelines, providing illustrative examples and practical recommendations for completing its items. Improving the accuracy of risk-of-bias assessment is crucial for enhancing the reliability of data synthesis and interpretation in the health sciences.

Suggested Citation

  • Emanuela Gualdi-Russo & Luciana Zaccagni, 2026. "The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for Assessing the Quality of Studies in Systematic Reviews," Publications, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-9, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:14:y:2026:i:1:p:4-:d:1831571
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/14/1/4/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/14/1/4/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:14:y:2026:i:1:p:4-:d:1831571. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.