Effect of standardized training on the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool: A prospective study

Systematic Reviews

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  da Costa, Bruno R ^a   Beckett, Brooke ^b   Diaz, Alison ^b   Resta, Nina M ^b   Johnston, Bradley C ^c   Egger, Matthias ^a   Jüni, Peter ^d   Armijo Olivo, Susan ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

^b FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^d ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AQUATIC EXERCISE; ARTICLE; BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA EXTRACTION; DIATHERMY; EDUCATION; ELECTROTHERAPY; HUMAN; KAPPA STATISTICS; KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS; KNEE PAIN; MANIPULATIVE MEDICINE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PHYSIOTHERAPY; PILOT STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RELIABILITY; STATISTICAL BIAS; TEST RETEST RELIABILITY; LITERATURE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; RISK FACTOR; STANDARDS; STATISTICS;

BIAS; HUMANS; PILOT PROJECTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; RISK FACTORS; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85014376734     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20464053     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-017-0441-7     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126(5):376-80. Epub 1997/03/01.
2. Egger M, Smith GD. Meta-analysis. Potentials and promise. BMJ. 1997;315(7119):1371-4. Epub 1998/02/12. PubMed PMID: 9432250; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC2127866.
3. Egger M, Smith GD, Sterne JA. Uses and abuses of meta-analysis. Clin Med. 2001;1(6):478-84.
4. Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ. 2001;323(7303):42-6.
5. Higgins J, Altman D. Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins J, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 50. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008.
6. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Goetzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343(7829). http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d5928.
7. Sterne JA. Why the Cochrane risk of bias tool should not include funding source as a standard item. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;12:ED000076. Epub 2014/02/28.
8. Armijo-Olivo S, Ospina M, da Costa BR, Egger M, Saltaji H, Fuentes CJ, et al. Poor reliability between Cochrane reviewers and blinded external reviewers when applying the Cochrane risk of bias tool in physical therapy trials. PloS One. 2014;9(5). http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0096920.
9. Graham N, Haines T, Goldsmith CH, Gross A, Burnie S, Shahzad U, et al. Reliability of three assessment tools used to evaluate randomized controlled trials for treatment of neck pain. Spine. 2011.
10. Hartling L, Hamm MP, Milne A, Vandermeer B, Santaguida PL, Ansari M, et al. Testing the risk of bias tool showed low reliability between individual reviewers and across consensus assessments of reviewer pairs. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;66(9):973-81.
11. da Costa BR, Hilfiker R, Egger M. PEDro's bias: summary quality scores should not be used in meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(1):75-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.08.003. Epub 2012/11/28.
12. Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. Jama. 1999;282(11):1054-60.
13. da Costa BR, Resta NM, Beckett B, Israel-Stahre N, Diaz A, Johnston BC, et al. Effect of standardized training on the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool: a study protocol. Syst Rev. 2014;3:144. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-3-144. Epub 2014/12/17. PubMed PMID: 25495124; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4273317.
14. Byrt T. How good is that agreement? Epidemiology. 1996;7(5):561.
15. Efron B. Better bootstrap confidence intervals. J Am Stat Assoc. 1987;82(397):171-85.
16. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gotzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(8):e1-37. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.004. Epub 2010/03/30.
17. To MJ, Jones J, Emara M, Jadad AR. Are reports of randomized controlled trials improving over time? A systematic review of 284 articles published in high-impact general and specialized medical journals. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e84779. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084779. Epub 2014/01/07. PubMed PMID: 24391973; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3877340.
18. Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA. 2001;285(15):1992-5. Epub 2001/04/20.
19. Nuesch E, Trelle S, Reichenbach S, Rutjes AW, Tschannen B, Altman DG, et al. Small study effects in meta-analyses of osteoarthritis trials: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2010;341(16):c3515.
20. Berger VW, Mickenautsch S. On the need for objective measures of risk of bias. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015;41:202-3. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2015.02.001. Epub 2015/02/11.
21. Armijo-Olivo S, Stiles CR, Hagen NA, Biondo PD, Cummings GG. 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. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012;18(1):12-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01516.x. Epub 2010/08/12.
22. Hartling L, Ospina M, Liang Y, Dryden DM, Hooton N, Seida JK, Hartling L, Ospina M, Liang Y, Dryden DM, Hooton N, Seida JK, et al. Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2009;339(7728):1017.
23. Corbett MS, Higgins JP, Woolacott NF. Assessing baseline imbalance in randomised trials: implications for the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5(1):79-85. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1090. Epub 2014/03/01.
24. Savovic J, Weeks L, Sterne JA, Turner L, Altman DG, Moher D, et al. Evaluation of the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials: focus groups, online survey, proposed recommendations and their implementation. Syst Rev. 2014;3:37. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-3-37. Epub 2014/04/16. PubMed PMID: 24731537; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4022341.
25. Johnston BC, da Costa BR, Devereaux PJ, Akl EA, Busse JW. The use of expertise-based randomized controlled trials to assess spinal manipulation and acupuncture for low back pain: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33(8):914-8. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816b4be4. Epub 2008/04/12.
26. Fourcade L, Boutron I, Moher D, Ronceray L, Baron G, Ravaud P. Development and evaluation of a pedagogical tool to improve understanding of a quality checklist: a randomised controlled trial. PLoS Clin Trials. 2007;2(5):e22. doi: 10.1371/journal.pctr.0020022. Epub 2007/05/05. PubMed PMID: 17479163; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC1865084.