When writing systematic reviews or meta-analyses one needs to evaluate the quality of the studies before deciding which studies to include in the review. There are different criteria used for different types of studies: RCT, observational studies, genetic studies economic evaluation studies, studies about assessment instruments etc. There is a whole literature on 'reporting guidelines' for these different types of studies. A couple of links are as follows:

uniform Requirements for Manuscripts.  www.ICMJE.org

 randomized controlled trials: CONSORT guidelines(http://www.consort-statement.org) 

observational studies (cohort, case-control or cross-sectional designs): STROBE (http://www.strobe-statement.org)

genetic association studies: STREGA guidelines (PLoS Med 6(2): e1000022. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000022)

studies of diagnostic accuracy: STARD guidelines (http://www.consortstatement.-org/stardstatement.htm)

systematic reviews and meta-analyses: PRISMA guidelines (http://www.prisma-statement.org)

meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology: MOOSE guidelines

     (http://www.consortstatement-org/Initiatives/MOOSE/moose.pdf)

To assess the quality to studies about the theraputic interventions in medicine, the Cochrane Collaboration (which has developed the GRADE criteria) is the most authitative source.

Risk of bias assessment from Cochrane collaboration.

When writing systematic reviews or meta-analyses one needs to evaluate the quality of the studies before deciding which studies to include in the review. There are different criteria used for different types of studies: RCT, observational studies, genetic studies economic evaluation studies, studies about assessment instruments etc. There is a whole literature on 'reporting guidelines' for these different types of studies. A couple of links are as follows:

uniform Requirements for Manuscripts.  www.ICMJE.org

 randomized controlled trials: CONSORT guidelines(http://www.consort-statement.org) 

observational studies (cohort, case-control or cross-sectional designs): STROBE (http://www.strobe-statement.org)

genetic association studies: STREGA guidelines (PLoS Med 6(2): e1000022. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000022)

studies of diagnostic accuracy: STARD guidelines (http://www.consortstatement.-org/stardstatement.htm)

systematic reviews and meta-analyses: PRISMA guidelines (http://www.prisma-statement.org)

meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology: MOOSE guidelines

     (http://www.consortstatement-org/Initiatives/MOOSE/moose.pdf)

To assess the quality to studies about the theraputic interventions in medicine, the Cochrane Collaboration (which has developed the GRADE criteria) is the most authitative source.

I posted here a link including a tools list

http://amstar.ca/Existing_Critical_Appraisal_Tools.php

Another possible tool is the Newcastle-Ottawa quality Assessment Scale used for observational studies (cohort and case-control studies). Good luck.

When dealing with prediction model using multiple variables in your study  then there is checklist for it 

TRIPOD statement.

Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement

http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.g7594.full.pdf+html

For systematic reviews and meta-analysis I suggest PRISMA Statement. STROBE Statement  for obsevational studies.  COREQ for qualitative studies 

Many thanks to you all for your kind and helpful response. 

Best wishes.

An additional method to assess diagnostic accuracy studies is the Quality Assessment tool of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS). A QUADAS resource review is available at http://ebm.bmj.com/content/11/6/189.full.

The EQUATOR network (http://www.equator-network.org/) reports all guidelines and recommendations according the different type of study designs.

From your terminology (reliability and reproducibility) am I right in thinking this is for risk assessment purposes? There are some specific tools developed for this but be very, very cautious in applying them - almost none have been validated, and many make fundamental errors which put them at high risk of producing biased results. Krauth et al. systematically reviewed the available tools quite recently (see attached link).

For why scales and scores in particular should be avoided, see Juni et al. (empirical evidence that scales don't work) and Greenland & O'Rourke (demonstration of why in principle they cannot work).

Article On the bias produced by quality scores in meta-analysis, and...

Article The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Me...

Article Instruments for Assessing Risk of Bias and Other Methodologi...

I think this is the most commonly, or acceptable, system used in medicine / epidemiology: http://www.guidelinedevelopment.org/handbook/

The National Academy of Sciences, has several free books, related to the field of forensics and accuracy of methods.

Many thanks to everyone. 

Finally, I have used the COSMIN checklist to assess reliability and measurement error for carring out my systematic review. It is very easy to use and it have been validated in the literature.

Hope it helps too.

http://www.cosmin.nl/images/upload/files/COSMIN%20checklist%20manual%20v9.pdf

Please see the following papers

Article Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and repo...

Article Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by s...

Article Guidance on assessing the methodological and reporting quali...

Best Regards Saúl Martín Rodríguez

Does any one know a quality assessment tool for Before-After (Pre-Post) Studies ?

I found this one

https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools

but I don't know how to use and score an article.