Cargando…

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

BACKGROUND: The Cochrane risk of bias tool is commonly criticized for having a low reliability. We aimed to investigate whether training of raters, with objective and standardized instructions on how to assess risk of bias, can improve the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias tool. METHODS: In t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: da Costa, Bruno R., Beckett, Brooke, Diaz, Alison, Resta, Nina M., Johnston, Bradley C., Egger, Matthias, Jüni, Peter, Armijo-Olivo, Susan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5335785/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28253938
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0441-7
_version_ 1782512105494151168
author da Costa, Bruno R.
Beckett, Brooke
Diaz, Alison
Resta, Nina M.
Johnston, Bradley C.
Egger, Matthias
Jüni, Peter
Armijo-Olivo, Susan
author_facet da Costa, Bruno R.
Beckett, Brooke
Diaz, Alison
Resta, Nina M.
Johnston, Bradley C.
Egger, Matthias
Jüni, Peter
Armijo-Olivo, Susan
author_sort da Costa, Bruno R.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The Cochrane risk of bias tool is commonly criticized for having a low reliability. We aimed to investigate whether training of raters, with objective and standardized instructions on how to assess risk of bias, can improve the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias tool. METHODS: In this pilot study, four raters inexperienced in risk of bias assessment were randomly allocated to minimal or intensive standardized training for risk of bias assessment of randomized trials of physical therapy treatments for patients with knee osteoarthritis pain. Two raters were experienced risk of bias assessors who served as reference. The primary outcome of our study was between-group reliability, defined as the agreement of the risk of bias assessments of inexperienced raters with the reference assessments of experienced raters. Consensus-based assessments were used for this purpose. The secondary outcome was within-group reliability, defined as the agreement of assessments within pairs of inexperienced raters. We calculated the chance-corrected weighted Kappa to quantify agreement within and between groups of raters for each of the domains of the risk of bias tool. RESULTS: A total of 56 trials were included in our analysis. The Kappa for the agreement of inexperienced raters with reference across items of the risk of bias tool ranged from 0.10 to 0.81 for the minimal training group and from 0.41 to 0.90 for the standardized training group. The Kappa values for the agreement within pairs of inexperienced raters across the items of the risk of bias tool ranged from 0 to 0.38 for the minimal training group and from 0.93 to 1 for the standardized training group. Between-group differences in Kappa for the agreement of inexperienced raters with reference always favored the standardized training group and was most pronounced for incomplete outcome data (difference in Kappa 0.52, p < 0.001) and allocation concealment (difference in Kappa 0.30, p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Intensive, standardized training on risk of bias assessment may significantly improve the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias tool. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0441-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5335785
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53357852017-03-07 Effect of standardized training on the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool: a prospective study da Costa, Bruno R. Beckett, Brooke Diaz, Alison Resta, Nina M. Johnston, Bradley C. Egger, Matthias Jüni, Peter Armijo-Olivo, Susan Syst Rev Research BACKGROUND: The Cochrane risk of bias tool is commonly criticized for having a low reliability. We aimed to investigate whether training of raters, with objective and standardized instructions on how to assess risk of bias, can improve the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias tool. METHODS: In this pilot study, four raters inexperienced in risk of bias assessment were randomly allocated to minimal or intensive standardized training for risk of bias assessment of randomized trials of physical therapy treatments for patients with knee osteoarthritis pain. Two raters were experienced risk of bias assessors who served as reference. The primary outcome of our study was between-group reliability, defined as the agreement of the risk of bias assessments of inexperienced raters with the reference assessments of experienced raters. Consensus-based assessments were used for this purpose. The secondary outcome was within-group reliability, defined as the agreement of assessments within pairs of inexperienced raters. We calculated the chance-corrected weighted Kappa to quantify agreement within and between groups of raters for each of the domains of the risk of bias tool. RESULTS: A total of 56 trials were included in our analysis. The Kappa for the agreement of inexperienced raters with reference across items of the risk of bias tool ranged from 0.10 to 0.81 for the minimal training group and from 0.41 to 0.90 for the standardized training group. The Kappa values for the agreement within pairs of inexperienced raters across the items of the risk of bias tool ranged from 0 to 0.38 for the minimal training group and from 0.93 to 1 for the standardized training group. Between-group differences in Kappa for the agreement of inexperienced raters with reference always favored the standardized training group and was most pronounced for incomplete outcome data (difference in Kappa 0.52, p < 0.001) and allocation concealment (difference in Kappa 0.30, p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Intensive, standardized training on risk of bias assessment may significantly improve the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias tool. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0441-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-03-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5335785/ /pubmed/28253938 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0441-7 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
da Costa, Bruno R.
Beckett, Brooke
Diaz, Alison
Resta, Nina M.
Johnston, Bradley C.
Egger, Matthias
Jüni, Peter
Armijo-Olivo, Susan
Effect of standardized training on the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool: a prospective study
title Effect of standardized training on the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool: a prospective study
title_full Effect of standardized training on the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool: a prospective study
title_fullStr Effect of standardized training on the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool: a prospective study
title_full_unstemmed Effect of standardized training on the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool: a prospective study
title_short Effect of standardized training on the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool: a prospective study
title_sort effect of standardized training on the reliability of the cochrane risk of bias assessment tool: a prospective study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5335785/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28253938
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0441-7
work_keys_str_mv AT dacostabrunor effectofstandardizedtrainingonthereliabilityofthecochraneriskofbiasassessmenttoolaprospectivestudy
AT beckettbrooke effectofstandardizedtrainingonthereliabilityofthecochraneriskofbiasassessmenttoolaprospectivestudy
AT diazalison effectofstandardizedtrainingonthereliabilityofthecochraneriskofbiasassessmenttoolaprospectivestudy
AT restaninam effectofstandardizedtrainingonthereliabilityofthecochraneriskofbiasassessmenttoolaprospectivestudy
AT johnstonbradleyc effectofstandardizedtrainingonthereliabilityofthecochraneriskofbiasassessmenttoolaprospectivestudy
AT eggermatthias effectofstandardizedtrainingonthereliabilityofthecochraneriskofbiasassessmenttoolaprospectivestudy
AT junipeter effectofstandardizedtrainingonthereliabilityofthecochraneriskofbiasassessmenttoolaprospectivestudy
AT armijoolivosusan effectofstandardizedtrainingonthereliabilityofthecochraneriskofbiasassessmenttoolaprospectivestudy