The PEDro scale had acceptably high convergent validity, construct validity, and interrater reliability in evaluating methodological quality of pharmaceutical trials

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 86, Issue , 2017, Pages 176-181

  Yamato, Tie Parma ^a   Maher, Chris ^a   Koes, Bart ^b   Moseley, Anne ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Drug; Methods; Pharmaceutical Research; Reliability; Risk of bias; Validation

Indexed keywords

ANALGESIC AGENT; OPIATE;

ARTICLE; CONSTRUCT VALIDITY; CONVERGENT VALIDITY; EFFECT SIZE; HUMAN; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; METHODOLOGY; OSTEOARTHRITIS; PEDRO; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SECONDARY ANALYSIS; SPINAL PAIN; CHRONIC PAIN; FACTUAL DATABASE; FEMALE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDS;

ANALGESICS; CHRONIC PAIN; DATABASES, FACTUAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 85017129069     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.03.002     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Maher, C.G., Sherrington, C., Herbert, R.D., Moseley, A.M., Elkins, M., Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys Ther 83 (2003), 713–721.
2. Olivo, S.A., Macedo, L.G., Gadotti, I.C., Fuentes, J., Stanton, T., Magee, D.J., Scales to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials: a systematic review. Phys Ther 88 (2008), 156–175.
3. Moher, D., Pham, B., Jones, A., Cook, D.J., Jadad, A.R., Moher, M., et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?. Lancet 352 (1998), 609–613.
4. Moseley, A.M., Elkins, M.R., Herbert, R.D., Maher, C.G., Sherrington, C., Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-Cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy. J Clin Epidemiol 62 (2009), 1021–1030.
5. Macedo, L.G., Elkins, M.R., Maher, C.G., Moseley, A.M., Herbert, R.D., Sherrington, C., There was evidence of convergent and construct validity of Physiotherapy Evidence Database quality scale for physiotherapy trials. J Clin Epidemiol 63 (2010), 920–925.
6. Foley, N.C., Bhogal, S.K., Teasell, R.W., Bureau, Y., Speechley, M.R., Estimates of quality and reliability with the physiotherapy evidence-based database scale to assess the methodology of randomized controlled trials of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions. Phys Ther 86 (2006), 817–824.
7. Brandt, C., Sole, G., Krause, M.W., Nel, M., An evidence-based review on the validity of the Kaltenborn rule as applied to the glenohumeral joint. Man Ther 12:1 (2007), 3–11.
8. Van Peppen, R.P., Kortsmit, M., Lindeman, E., Kwakkel, G., Effects of visual feedback therapy on postural control in bilateral standing after stroke: a systematic review. J Rehabil Med 38:1 (2006), 3–9.
9. Van Peppen, R.P., Kwakkel, G., Wood-Dauphinee, S., Hendriks, H.J., Van der Wees, P.J., Dekker, J., The impact of physical therapy on functional outcomes after stroke: what's the evidence?. Clin Rehabil 18:8 (2004), 833–862.
10. de Morton, N.A., The PEDro scale is a valid measure of the methodological quality of clinical trials: a demographic study. Aust J Physiother 55:2 (2009), 129–133.
11. Jadad, A.R., Moore, R.A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D.J., Gavaghan, D.J., et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?. Control Clin Trials 17 (1996), 1–12.
12. Herbison, P., Hay-Smith, J., Gillespie, W.J., Adjustment of meta-analyses on the basis of quality scores should be abandoned. J Clin Epidemiol 59 (2006), 1249–1256.
13. Colle, F., Rannou, F., Revel, M., Fermanian, J., Poiraudeau, S., Impact of quality scales on levels of evidence inferred from a systematic review of exercise therapy and low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 83 (2002), 1745–1752.
14. Verhagen, A.P., de Vet, H.C., de Bie, R.A., Kessels, A.G., Boers, M., Bouter, L.M., et al. The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol 51 (1998), 1235–1241.
15. Higgins, J.P.T., Green, S., (eds.) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011], 2011, The Cochrane Collaboration Available at www.cochrane-handbook.org Accessed on August 2016.
16. Furlan, A.D., Malmivaara, A., Chou, R., Maher, C.G., Deyo, R.A., Schoene, M., et al. 2015 Updated Method Guideline for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Back and Neck Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40:21 (2015), 1660–1673.
17. Hartling, L., Ospina, M., Liang, Y., Dryden, D.M., Hooton, N., Krebs Seida, J., et al. Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study. BMJ, 339, 2009, b4012.
18. Armijo-Olivo, S., Ospina, M., da Costa, B.R., Egger, M., Saltaji, H., Fuentes, J., 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, 9, 2014, e96920.
19. Hartling, L., Hamm, M.P., Milne, A., Vandermeer, B., Santaguida, P.L., 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 66 (2013), 973–981.
20. Steel, J.L., Bress, K., Popichak, L., Evans, J.S., Savkova, A., Biala, M., et al. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials testing the efficacy of psychosocial interventions for gastrointestinal cancers. J Gastrointest Cancer 45 (2014), 181–189.
21. Sheinfeld Gorin, S., Krebs, P., Badr, H., Janke, E.A., Jim, H.S., Spring, B., et al. Meta-analysis of psychosocial interventions to reduce pain in patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol 30 (2012), 539–547.
22. Machado, G.C., Ferreira, P.H., Harris, I.A., Pinheiro, M.B., Koes, B.W., van Tulder, M., et al. Effectiveness of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One, 10, 2015, e0122800.
23. Pinto, R.Z., Maher, C.G., Ferreira, M.L., Ferreira, P.H., Hancock, M., Oliveira, V.C., et al. Drugs for relief of pain in patients with sciatica: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ, 344, 2012, e497.
24. Schulz, K.F., Chalmers, I., Hayes, R.J., Altman, D.G., Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 273 (1995), 408–412.
25. Fowler, J., Jarvis, P., Chevannes, M., Practical statistics for nursing and health care. 1st ed, 2002, Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey.
26. Streiner, D., Norman, G., Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 4th ed, 2008, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
27. Landis, J.R., Koch, G.G., The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33 (1977), 159–174.
28. Mackinnon, A., A spreadsheet for the calculation of comprehensive statistics for the assessment of diagnostic tests and inter-rater agreement. Comput Biol Med 30:3 (2000), 127–134.
29. da Costa, B.R., Hilfiker, R., Egger, M., PEDro's bias: summary quality scores should not be used in meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 66 (2013), 75–77.
30. Armijo-Olivo, S., da Costa, B.R., Cummings, G.G., Ha, C., Fuentes, J., Saltaji, H., et al. PEDro or Cochrane to assess the quality of clinical trials? A meta-epidemiological study. PLoS One, 10, 2015, e0132634.
31. Costa, L.O., Maher, C.G., Moseley, A.M., Elkins, M.R., Shiwa, S.R., Herbert, R.D., et al. da Costa and colleagues’ criticism of PEDro scores is not supported by the data. J Clin Epidemiol 66 (2013), 1192–1193.
32. Devereaux, P.J., Manns, B.J., Ghali, W.A., Quan, H., Lacchetti, C., Montori, V.M., et al. Physician interpretations and textbook definitions of blinding terminology in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 285 (2001), 2000–2003.