Effect of standardized training on the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool: a prospective study

被引:42
作者
da Costa, Bruno R. [1 ]
Beckett, Brooke [2 ]
Diaz, Alison [2 ]
Resta, Nina M. [2 ]
Johnston, Bradley C. [3 ,4 ]
Egger, Matthias [5 ]
Juni, Peter [6 ]
Armijo-Olivo, Susan [7 ]
机构
[1] Univ Bern, Inst Primary Hlth Care BIHAM, Gesellschaftsstr 49, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland
[2] Florida Int Univ, Dept Phys Therapy, AHC3-430 11200 8 St, Miami, FL 33199 USA
[3] Univ Toronto, Dept Anesthesia & Pain Med, Toronto, ON, Canada
[4] Univ Toronto, Inst Hlth Policy Management & Evaluat, Toronto, ON, Canada
[5] Univ Bern, Inst Social & Prevent Med, Bern, Switzerland
[6] Univ Toronto, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Inst, St Michaels Hosp, Appl Hlth Res Ctr AHRC,Dept Med, Toronto, ON, Canada
[7] Univ Alberta, Fac Rehabil Med, Dept Phys Therapy, Edmonton, AB, Canada
关键词
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS; RANDOMIZED-TRIALS; QUALITY;
D O I
10.1186/s13643-017-0441-7
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: The Cochrane risk of bias tool is commonly criticized for having a low reliability. We aimed to investigate whether training of raters, with objective and standardized instructions on how to assess risk of bias, can improve the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Methods: In this pilot study, four raters inexperienced in risk of bias assessment were randomly allocated to minimal or intensive standardized training for risk of bias assessment of randomized trials of physical therapy treatments for patients with knee osteoarthritis pain. Two raters were experienced risk of bias assessors who served as reference. The primary outcome of our study was between-group reliability, defined as the agreement of the risk of bias assessments of inexperienced raters with the reference assessments of experienced raters. Consensus-based assessments were used for this purpose. The secondary outcome was within-group reliability, defined as the agreement of assessments within pairs of inexperienced raters. We calculated the chance-corrected weighted Kappa to quantify agreement within and between groups of raters for each of the domains of the risk of bias tool. Results: A total of 56 trials were included in our analysis. The Kappa for the agreement of inexperienced raters with reference across items of the risk of bias tool ranged from 0.10 to 0.81 for the minimal training group and from 0. 41 to 0.90 for the standardized training group. The Kappa values for the agreement within pairs of inexperienced raters across the items of the risk of bias tool ranged from 0 to 0.38 for the minimal training group and from 0.93 to 1 for the standardized training group. Between-group differences in Kappa for the agreement of inexperienced raters with reference always favored the standardized training group and was most pronounced for incomplete outcome data (difference in Kappa 0.52, p < 0.001) and allocation concealment (difference in Kappa 0.30, p = 0.004). Conclusions: Intensive, standardized training on risk of bias assessment may significantly improve the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias tool.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 25 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], COCHRANE DATABASE SY
[2]  
[Anonymous], SPINE
[3]   Poor Reliability between Cochrane Reviewers and Blinded External Reviewers When Applying the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool in Physical Therapy Trials [J].
Armijo-Olivo, Susan ;
Ospina, Maria ;
da Costa, Bruno R. ;
Egger, Matthias ;
Saltaji, Humam ;
Fuentes, Jorge ;
Ha, Christine ;
Cummings, Greta G. .
PLOS ONE, 2014, 9 (05)
[4]   Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool: methodological research [J].
Armijo-Olivo, Susan ;
Stiles, Carla R. ;
Hagen, Neil A. ;
Biondo, Patricia D. ;
Cummings, Greta G. .
JOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE, 2012, 18 (01) :12-18
[5]   On the need for objective measures of risk of bias [J].
Berger, Vance W. ;
Mickenautsch, Steffen .
CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL TRIALS, 2015, 41 :202-203
[6]   How good is that agreement? [J].
Byrt, T .
EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1996, 7 (05) :561-561
[7]   Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions [J].
Cook, DJ ;
Mulrow, CD ;
Haynes, RB .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1997, 126 (05) :376-380
[8]   Assessing baseline imbalance in randomised trials: implications for the Cochrane risk of bias tool [J].
Corbett, Mark S. ;
Higgins, Julian P. T. ;
Woolacott, Nerys F. .
RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2014, 5 (01) :79-85
[9]   Effect of standardized training on the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool: A study protocol [J].
Da Costa B.R. ;
Resta N.M. ;
Beckett B. ;
Israel-Stahre N. ;
Diaz A. ;
Johnston B.C. ;
Egger M. ;
Jüni P. ;
Armijo-Olivo S. .
Systematic Reviews, 3 (1)
[10]   PEDro's bias: summary quality scores should not be used in meta-analysis [J].
da Costa, Bruno R. ;
Hilfiker, Roger ;
Egger, Matthias .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2013, 66 (01) :75-77