ERA

Download the full-sized PDF of Poor reliability between Cochrane reviewers and blinded external reviewers when applying the Cochrane risk of bias tool in physical therapy trials.Download the full-sized PDF

Analytics

Share

Permanent link (DOI): https://doi.org/10.7939/R36D5PH74

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

Poor reliability between Cochrane reviewers and blinded external reviewers when applying the Cochrane risk of bias tool in physical therapy trials. Open Access

Descriptions

Author or creator
Armijo-Olivo, S.
Ospina, M.
da Costa, B. R.
Egger, M.
Saltaji, H.
Fuentes, J.
Ha, C.
Cummings, G. G.
Additional contributors
Subject/Keyword
clinical trials
randomized-control trials
physical therapy
systematic reviews
Type of item
Journal Article (Published)
Language
English
Place
Time
Description
Objectives: To test the inter-rater reliability of the RoB tool applied to Physical Therapy (PT) trials by comparing ratings from Cochrane review authors with those of blinded external reviewers. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in PT were identified by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for meta-analysis of PT interventions. RoB assessments were conducted independently by 2 reviewers blinded to the RoB ratings reported in the Cochrane reviews. Data on RoB assessments from Cochrane reviews and other characteristics of reviews and trials were extracted. Consensus assessments between the two reviewers were then compared with the RoB ratings from the Cochrane reviews. Agreement between Cochrane and blinded external reviewers was assessed using weighted kappa (k). Results: In total, 109 trials included in 17 Cochrane reviews were assessed. Inter-rater reliability on the overall RoB assessment between Cochrane review authors and blinded external reviewers was poor (k = 0.02, 95%CI: 20.06, 0.06]). Inter-rater reliability on individual domains of the RoB tool was poor (median k = 0.19), ranging from k = 20.04 (‘‘Other bias’’) to k = 0.62 (‘‘Sequence generation’’). There was also no agreement (k = 20.29, 95%CI: 20.81, 0.35]) in the overall RoB assessment at the meta-analysis level. Conclusions: Risk of bias assessments of RCTs using the RoB tool are not consistent across different research groups. Poor agreement was not only demonstrated at the trial level but also at the meta-analysis level. Results have implications for decision making since different recommendations can be reached depending on the group analyzing the evidence. Improved guidelines to consistently apply the RoB tool and revisions to the tool for different health areas are needed.
Date created
2014
DOI
doi:10.7939/R36D5PH74
License information
Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivatives 3.0 Unported
Rights

Citation for previous publication
Armijo-Olivo, S., Ospina, M., da Costa, B. R., Egger, M., Saltaji, H., Fuentes, J., ... & Cummings, G. G.(2014). Poor reliability between Cochrane reviewers and blinded external reviewers when applying the Cochrane risk of bias tool in physical therapy trials. PloS One, 9(5), e96920. 
Source
Link to related item

File Details

Date Uploaded
Date Modified
2014-06-16T17:32:18.135+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: 295864
Last modified: 2015:10:12 19:53:05-06:00
Filename: PLOS_2014_9_5.pdf
Original checksum: f4d1f9676a0eeff4018ca32669a23245
Well formed: false
Valid: false
Status message: Unexpected error in findFonts java.lang.ClassCastException: edu.harvard.hul.ois.jhove.module.pdf.PdfSimpleObject cannot be cast to edu.harvard.hul.ois.jhove.module.pdf.PdfDictionary offset=3391
Page count: 10
Activity of users you follow
User Activity Date