ERA

Download the full-sized PDF of Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study.Download the full-sized PDF

Analytics

Share

Permanent link (DOI): https://doi.org/10.7939/R32R3NZ51

Download

Export to: EndNote  |  Zotero  |  Mendeley

Communities

This file is in the following communities:

Pediatrics, Department of

Collections

This file is in the following collections:

Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence (ARCHE)

Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study. Open Access

Descriptions

Author or creator
Hartling, L.
Ospina, M.
Liang, Y.
Dryden, D. M.
Hooton, N.
Krebs Seida, J.
Klassen, T. P.
Additional contributors
Subject/Keyword
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
research design
assessement
Type of item
Journal Article (Published)
Language
English
Place
Time
Description
Objectives To evaluate the risk of bias tool, introduced by the Cochrane Collaboration for assessing the internal validity of randomised trials, for inter-rater agreement, concurrent validity compared with the Jadad scale and Schulz approach to allocation concealment, and the relation between risk of bias and effect estimates. Design Cross sectional study. Study sample 163 trials in children. Main outcome measures Inter-rater agreement between reviewers assessing trials using the risk of bias tool (weighted κ), time to apply the risk of bias tool compared with other approaches to quality assessment (paired t test), degree of correlation for overall risk compared with overall quality scores (Kendall’s τ statistic), and magnitude of effect estimates for studies classified as being at high, unclear, or low risk of bias (metaregression). Results Inter-rater agreement on individual domains of the risk of bias tool ranged from slight (κ=0.13) to substantial (κ=0.74). The mean time to complete the risk of bias tool was significantly longer than for the Jadad scale and Schulz approach, individually or combined (8.8 minutes (SD 2.2) per study v 2.0 (SD 0.8), P<0.001). There was low correlation between risk of bias overall compared with the Jadad scores (P=0.395) and Schulz approach (P=0.064). Effect sizes differed between studies assessed as being at high or unclear risk of bias (0.52) compared with those at low risk (0.23). Conclusions Inter-rater agreement varied across domains of the risk of bias tool. Generally, agreement was poorer for those items that required more judgment. There was low correlation between assessments of overall risk of bias and two common approaches to quality assessment: the Jadad scale and Schulz approach to allocation concealment. Overall risk of bias as assessed by the risk of bias tool differentiated effect estimates, with more conservative estimates for studies at low risk.
Date created
2009
DOI
doi:10.7939/R32R3NZ51
License information
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported
Rights

Citation for previous publication
Hartling, L., Ospina, M., Liang, Y., Dryden, D. M., Hooton, N., Krebs Seida, J., & Klassen, T. P. (2009). Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study. BMJ, 339, b4012. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b4012.
Source
Link to related item

File Details

Date Uploaded
Date Modified
2014-07-29T17:13:24.854+00:00
Audit Status
Audits have not yet been run on this file.
Characterization
File format: pdf (Portable Document Format)
Mime type: application/pdf
File size: 125407
Last modified: 2015:10:12 16:25:31-06:00
Filename: BMJ_2009_339_b4012.pdf
Original checksum: 6ed5a1f6c553e064a13f819a467c86ed
Well formed: true
Valid: true
Page count: 6
Activity of users you follow
User Activity Date