ERA

Download the full-sized PDF of PEDro or Cochrane to assess the quality of clinical trials? A meta-epidemiological studyDownload the full-sized PDF

Analytics

Share

Permanent link (DOI): https://doi.org/10.7939/R3H41JP4S

Download

Export to: EndNote  |  Zotero  |  Mendeley

Communities

This file is in the following communities:

Nursing, Faculty of

Collections

This file is in the following collections:

Health Systems

PEDro or Cochrane to assess the quality of clinical trials? A meta-epidemiological study Open Access

Descriptions

Author or creator
Armijo-Olivo, Susan
da Costa, Bruno R.
Cummings, Greta G.
Ha, Christine
Fuentes, Jorge
Saltaji, Humam
Egger, Matthias
Additional contributors
Subject/Keyword
Epidemiology
Medical research
Clinical trials
physical therapy
Medicine, Experimental
Type of item
Journal Article (Published)
Language
English
Place
Time
Description
Objective: There is debate on how the methodological quality of clinical trials should be assessed. We compared trials of physical therapy (PT) judged to be of adequate quality based on summary scores from the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale with trials judged to be of adequate quality by Cochrane Risk of Bias criteria. Design: Meta-epidemiological study within Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Methods: Meta-analyses of PT trials were identified in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. For each trial PeDro and Cochrane assessments were extracted from the PeDro and Cochrane databases. Adequate quality was defined as adequate generation of random sequence, concealment of allocation, and blinding of outcome assessors (Cochrane criteria) or as trials with a PEDro summary score ≥5 or ≥6 points. We combined trials of adequate quality using random-effects meta-analysis. Results: Forty-one Cochrane reviews and 353 PT trials were included. All meta-analyses included trials with PEDro scores ≥5, 37 (90.2%) included trials with PEDro scores ≥6 and only 22 (53.7%) meta-analyses included trials of adequate quality according to the Cochrane criteria. Agreement between PeDro and Cochrane was poor for PeDro scores of ≥5 points (kappa = 0.12; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.16) and slight for ≥6 points (kappa 0.24; 95% CI 0.16-0.32). When combining effect sizes of trials deemed to be of adequate quality according to PEDro or Cochrane criteria, we found that a substantial difference in the combined effect size (≥0.15) was evident in 9 (22%) out of the 41 meta-analyses for PEDro cutoff ≥5 and 10 (24%) for cutoff ≥6. Conclusions: The PeDro and Cochrane approaches lead to different sets of trials of adequate quality, and different combined treatment estimates from meta-analyses of these trials. A consistent approach to assessing RoB in trials of physical therapy should be adopted.
Date created
2015
DOI
doi:10.7939/R3H41JP4S
License information
Rights
© 2015 Susan Armijo-Olivo, et al. This is an Open Access document distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.
Citation for previous publication
Armijo-Olivo, S., da Costa, B. R., Cummings, G. G., Ha, C., Fuentes, J., Saltaji, H., & Egger, M. 2015. PEDro or Cochrane to assess the quality of clinical trials? A meta-epidemiological study. PloS One, 10(7), e0132634. dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132634
Source
Link to related item

File Details

Date Uploaded
Date Modified
2015-07-24T19:42:35.209+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: 305483
Last modified: 2015:10:12 15:18:44-06:00
Filename: PLOS1_10_7_2015.pdf
Original checksum: f18af3bc17c02ee9d0d5c48c1e3b5423
Well formed: true
Valid: false
Status message: Invalid destination object offset=171041
Status message: Invalid destination object offset=171041
Status message: Invalid destination object offset=171041
Status message: Invalid destination object offset=171041
Status message: Invalid destination object offset=171041
File title: PEDro or Cochrane to Assess the Quality of Clinical Trials? A Meta-Epidemiological Study
File author: Susan Armijo-Olivo, Bruno R. da Costa, Greta G. Cummings, Christine Ha, Jorge Fuentes, Humam Saltaji, Matthias Egger
Page count: 14
Activity of users you follow
User Activity Date