A scale for rating the quality of psychological trials for pain

被引:123
作者
Yates, SL
Morley, S
Eccleston, C
Williams, ACD
机构
[1] Univ Leeds, Acad Unit Psychiat & Behav Sci, Leeds LS2 9JT, W Yorkshire, England
[2] Univ Bath, Pain Management Unit, Bath BA2 7AY, Avon, England
[3] UCL, Dept Psychol, London WC1E 6BT, England
关键词
D O I
10.1016/j.pain.2005.06.018
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
This paper reports the development of a scale for assessing the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials for psychological treatments. The Delphi method was used in which a panel of 15-12 experts generated statements relating to treatment and design components of trials. After three rounds, statements with high consensus agreement were reviewed by a second expert panel and rewritten as a scale. Evidence to support the reliability and validity of the scale is reported. Three expert and five novice raters assessed sets of 31 and 25 published trials to establish scale reliability (ICC ranges from 0.91 to 0.41 for experts and novices, respectively) and item reliability (Kappa and inter-rater agreement). The total scale score discriminated between trials globally judged as good and poor by experts, and trial quality was shown to be a function of year of publication. Uses for the scale are suggested. (c) 2005 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of International Association for the Study of Pain.
引用
收藏
页码:314 / 325
页数:12
相关论文
共 38 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 1999, Qualitative research in Health Care
  • [2] Establishing specificity in psychotherapy: A meta-analysis of structural equivalence of placebo controls
    Baskin, TW
    Tierney, SC
    Minami, T
    Wampold, BE
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CONSULTING AND CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2003, 71 (06) : 973 - 979
  • [3] Incorporation of cognitive-behavioral treatment into the medical care of chronic low back patients: A controlled randomized study in German pain treatment centers
    Basler, HD
    Jakle, C
    KronerHerwig, B
    [J]. PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 1997, 31 (02) : 113 - 124
  • [4] COGNITIVE THERAPY VERSUS SYSTEMATIC-DESENSITIZATION - IS ONE TREATMENT SUPERIOR
    BERMAN, JS
    MILLER, RC
    MASSMAN, PJ
    [J]. PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN, 1985, 97 (03) : 451 - 461
  • [5] BUCHAN IE, 2000, STATSDIRECT SOFTWARE
  • [6] A METHOD FOR ASSESSING THE QUALITY OF A RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIAL
    CHALMERS, TC
    SMITH, H
    BLACKBURN, B
    SILVERMAN, B
    SCHROEDER, B
    REITMAN, D
    AMBROZ, A
    [J]. CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 1981, 2 (01): : 31 - 49
  • [7] Evidence-based behavioral medicine: What is it and how do we achieve it?
    Davidson, KW
    Goldstein, M
    Kaplan, RM
    Kaufmann, PG
    Knatterud, GL
    Orleans, CT
    Spring, B
    Trudeau, KJ
    Whitlock, EP
    [J]. ANNALS OF BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE, 2003, 26 (03) : 161 - 171
  • [8] The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions
    Downs, SH
    Black, N
    [J]. JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH, 1998, 52 (06) : 377 - 384
  • [9] Systematic review of randomised controlled trials of psychological therapy for chronic pain in children and adolescents, with a subset meta-analysis of pain relief
    Eccleston, C
    Morley, S
    Williams, A
    Yorke, L
    Mastroyannopoulou, K
    [J]. PAIN, 2002, 99 (1-2) : 157 - 165
  • [10] Efficacy of a self-management group intervention for elderly persons with chronic pain
    Ersek, M
    Turner, JA
    McCurry, SM
    Gibbons, L
    Kraybill, BM
    [J]. CLINICAL JOURNAL OF PAIN, 2003, 19 (03) : 156 - 167