Identifying items to assess methodological quality in physical therapy trials: A factor analysis

Physical Therapy

Volumn 94, Issue 9, 2014, Pages 1272-1284

  Armijo Olivo, Susan ^a   Cummings, Greta G ^a   Fuentes, Jorge ^a   Saltaji, Humam ^a   Ha, Christine ^a   Chisholm, Annabritt ^a   Pasichnyk, Dion ^b   Rogers, Todd ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PHYSIOTHERAPY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); STANDARD; STATISTICAL BIAS;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; PHYSICAL THERAPY MODALITIES; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84906860780     PISSN: 00319023     EISSN: 15386724     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20130464     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, et al. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials. 1995; 16:62-73.
2. Olivo SA, Macedo LG, Gadotti IC, et al. Scales to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials: a systematic review. Phys Ther. 2008;88:156-175.
3. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928
4. Herbison P, Hay-Smith J, Gillespie WJ. Adjustment of meta-analyses on the basis of quality scores should be abandoned. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:1249-1256.
5. Jüni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA. 1999;282: 1054-1060.
6. Katrak P, Bialocerkowski AE, Massy-Westropp N, et al. A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2004;4:22. Available at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/4/22.
7. Armijo-Olivo S, Fuentes J, Ospina M, et al. Inconsistency in the items included in tools used in general health research and physical therapy to evaluate the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials: a descriptive analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:116.
8. Dechartres A, Charles P, Hopewell S, et al. Reviews assessing the quality or the reporting of randomized controlled trials are increasing over time but raised questions about how quality is assessed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:136-144.
9. Streiner D, Norman G. Validity. In: Streiner D, Norman G, eds. Health Measurements Scales. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2004:172-193.
10. Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available at: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org.
11. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 1998; 352:609-613.
12. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;273:408-412.
13. Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: metaepidemiological study. BMJ. 2008;336: 601-605.
14. Berger VW, Weinstein S. Ensuring the comparability of comparison groups: is randomization enough? Control Clin Trials. 2004;25:515-524.
15. Trowman R, Dumville JC, Torgerson DJ, Cranny G. The impact of trial baseline imbalances should be considered in systematic reviews: a methodological case study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:1229-1233.
16. Hewitt CE, Kumaravel B, Dumville JC, Torgerson DJ. Assessing the impact of attrition in randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:1264-1270.
17. Nüesch E, Trelle S, Reichenbach S, et al. The effects of excluding patients from the analysis in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2009;339:679-683.
18. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA. 2003;289:454-465.
19. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ. 2003;326:1167-1170.
20. Pildal J, Hróbjartsson A, Jørgensen KJ, et al. Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials. Int J Epidemiol. 2007; 36:847-857.
21. Kjaergard LL, Als-Nielsen B. Association between competing interests and authors' conclusions: epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ. BMJ. 2002;325:249.
22. Revuz J, Moyse D, Poli F, et al. A tool to evaluate rapidly the quality of clinical trials on topical acne treatment. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2008;22:800-806.
23. Crowe M, Sheppard L. A general critical appraisal tool: an evaluation of construct validity. Int J Nurs Stud. 2011;48:1505-1516.
24. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10.
25. Field AP. Exploratory factor analysis. In: Field AP, ed. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: (and Sex and Drugs and Rock 'n' Roll). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2009:619-680.
26. Stevens J. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In: Stevens J, ed. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2002:385-470.
27. Kunz R, Autti-Rämö I, Anttila H, et al. A systematic review finds that methodological quality is better than its reputation but can be improved in physiotherapy trials in childhood cerebral palsy. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:1239-1248.
28. Moseley AM, Elkins MR, Herbert RD, et al. Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-Cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:1021-1030.
29. Position Statement: Standards of Physical Therapy Practice. London, United Kingdom: World Confederation for Physical Therapy; 2011.
30. Delgado-Rodríguez M, Llorca J. Bias. J Epidemiology Community Health. 2004;58: 635-641.
31. Sackett DL. Bias in analytic research. J Chronic Dis. 1979;32:51-68.
32. Montedori A, Bonacini MI, Casazza G, et al. Modified versus standard intentionto-treat reporting: are there differences in methodological quality, sponsorship, and findings in randomized trials? A crosssectional study. Trials. 2011;12:58.
33. Abraha I, Montedori A. Modified intention to treat reporting in randomised controlled trials: systematic review. BMJ. 2010;341:33.
34. Tierney JF, Stewart LA. Investigating patient exclusion bias in meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2005;34:79-87.
35. Armijo-Olivo S, Warren S, Magee D. Intention to treat analysis, compliance, dropouts and how to deal with missing data in clinical research: a review. Phys Ther Rev. 2009;14:36-49.
36. Huwiler-Müntener K, Jüni P, Junker C, Egger M. Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodologic quality. JAMA. 2002;287:2801-2804.
37. Soares HP, Daniels S, Kumar A, et al. Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. BMJ. 2004;328:22-24.
38. MacCallum R. Model specification, procedures, strategies, and related issues. In: Hoyle RH, ed. Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1995:16-36.