首页> 外文期刊>Journal of evaluation in clinical practice >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
【24h】

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

机译:系统评价的研究质量评估:Cochrane协作偏倚风险工具与有效的公共卫生实践项目质量评估工具的比较:方法学研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Background: The Cochrane Collaboration is strongly encouraging the use of a newly developed tool, the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool (CCRBT), for all review groups. However, the psychometric properties of this tool to date have yet to be described. Thus, the objective of this study was to add information about psychometric properties of the CCRBT including inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity, in comparison with the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool (EPHPP). Methods: Both tools were used to assess the methodological quality of 20 randomized controlled trials included in our systematic review of the effectiveness of knowledge translation interventions to improve the management of cancer pain. Each study assessment was completed independently by two reviewers using each tool.We analysed the inter-rater reliability of each tool's individual domains, as well as final grade assigned to each study. Results: The EPHPP had fair inter-rater agreement for individual domains and excellent agreement for the final grade. In contrast, the CCRBT had slight inter-rater agreement for individual domains and fair inter-rater agreement for final grade. Of interest, no agreement between the two tools was evident in their final grade assigned to each study. Although both tools were developed to assess 'quality of the evidence', they appear to measure different constructs. Conclusions: Both tools performed quite differently when evaluating the risk of bias or methodological quality of studies in knowledge translation interventions for cancer pain. The newly introduced CCRBT assigned these studies a higher risk of bias. Its psychometric properties need to be more thoroughly validated, in a range of research fields, to understand fully how to interpret results from its application.
机译:背景:Cochrane合作组织强烈鼓励所有审核组使用一种新开发的工具,即Cochrane合作偏差风险工具(CCRBT)。但是,迄今为止尚未对该工具的心理测量特性进行描述。因此,本研究的目的是与有效公共卫生实践项目质量评估工具(EPHPP)相比,添加有关CCRBT的心理计量学特性的信息,包括评分者之间的信度和并发有效性。方法:这两种工具均用于评估20项随机对照试验的方法学质量,这些试验包括在我们对知识翻译干预措施改善癌症疼痛管理有效性的系统评价中。每次研究评估均由两名审阅者使用每种工具独立完成。我们分析了每种工具各自领域的评估者之间的信度以及分配给每个研究的最终等级。结果:EPHPP在各个域之间具有公平的评估者协议,并且在最终成绩方面具有出色的协议。相比之下,CCRBT对于单个域的评估者之间的协议略有达成,而对于最终等级的评估者之间的协议则较为公平。有趣的是,在分配给每个研究的最终等级中,这两种工具之间没有明显的一致性。尽管开发了这两种工具来评估“证据质量”,但它们似乎可以衡量不同的结构。结论:在评估癌症疼痛的知识翻译干预措施中的偏倚风险或方法学质量时,这两种工具的表现截然不同。新近引入的CCRBT为这些研究分配了更高的偏见风险。在广泛的研究领域中,需要对其心理测量特性进行更彻底的验证,以充分理解如何解释其应用的结果。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号