Cargando…

Identification of tools used to assess the external validity of randomized controlled trials in reviews: a systematic review of measurement properties

BACKGROUND: Internal and external validity are the most relevant components when critically appraising randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for systematic reviews. However, there is no gold standard to assess external validity. This might be related to the heterogeneity of the terminology as well as...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jung, Andres, Balzer, Julia, Braun, Tobias, Luedtke, Kerstin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8985274/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35387582
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01561-5
_version_ 1784682333250519040
author Jung, Andres
Balzer, Julia
Braun, Tobias
Luedtke, Kerstin
author_facet Jung, Andres
Balzer, Julia
Braun, Tobias
Luedtke, Kerstin
author_sort Jung, Andres
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Internal and external validity are the most relevant components when critically appraising randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for systematic reviews. However, there is no gold standard to assess external validity. This might be related to the heterogeneity of the terminology as well as to unclear evidence of the measurement properties of available tools. The aim of this review was to identify tools to assess the external validity of RCTs. It was further, to evaluate the quality of identified tools and to recommend the use of individual tools to assess the external validity of RCTs in future systematic reviews. METHODS: A two-phase systematic literature search was performed in four databases: PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO via OVID, and CINAHL via EBSCO. First, tools to assess the external validity of RCTs were identified. Second, studies investigating the measurement properties of these tools were selected. The measurement properties of each included tool were appraised using an adapted version of the COnsensus based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines. RESULTS: 38 publications reporting on the development or validation of 28 included tools were included. For 61% (17/28) of the included tools, there was no evidence for measurement properties. For the remaining tools, reliability was the most frequently assessed property. Reliability was judged as “sufficient” for three tools (very low certainty of evidence). Content validity was rated as “sufficient” for one tool (moderate certainty of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results, no available tool can be fully recommended to assess the external validity of RCTs in systematic reviews. Several steps are required to overcome the identified difficulties to either adapt and validate available tools or to develop a better suitable tool. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospective registration at Open Science Framework (OSF): 10.17605/OSF.IO/PTG4D. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01561-5.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8985274
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89852742022-04-07 Identification of tools used to assess the external validity of randomized controlled trials in reviews: a systematic review of measurement properties Jung, Andres Balzer, Julia Braun, Tobias Luedtke, Kerstin BMC Med Res Methodol Research BACKGROUND: Internal and external validity are the most relevant components when critically appraising randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for systematic reviews. However, there is no gold standard to assess external validity. This might be related to the heterogeneity of the terminology as well as to unclear evidence of the measurement properties of available tools. The aim of this review was to identify tools to assess the external validity of RCTs. It was further, to evaluate the quality of identified tools and to recommend the use of individual tools to assess the external validity of RCTs in future systematic reviews. METHODS: A two-phase systematic literature search was performed in four databases: PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO via OVID, and CINAHL via EBSCO. First, tools to assess the external validity of RCTs were identified. Second, studies investigating the measurement properties of these tools were selected. The measurement properties of each included tool were appraised using an adapted version of the COnsensus based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines. RESULTS: 38 publications reporting on the development or validation of 28 included tools were included. For 61% (17/28) of the included tools, there was no evidence for measurement properties. For the remaining tools, reliability was the most frequently assessed property. Reliability was judged as “sufficient” for three tools (very low certainty of evidence). Content validity was rated as “sufficient” for one tool (moderate certainty of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results, no available tool can be fully recommended to assess the external validity of RCTs in systematic reviews. Several steps are required to overcome the identified difficulties to either adapt and validate available tools or to develop a better suitable tool. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospective registration at Open Science Framework (OSF): 10.17605/OSF.IO/PTG4D. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01561-5. BioMed Central 2022-04-06 /pmc/articles/PMC8985274/ /pubmed/35387582 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01561-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Jung, Andres
Balzer, Julia
Braun, Tobias
Luedtke, Kerstin
Identification of tools used to assess the external validity of randomized controlled trials in reviews: a systematic review of measurement properties
title Identification of tools used to assess the external validity of randomized controlled trials in reviews: a systematic review of measurement properties
title_full Identification of tools used to assess the external validity of randomized controlled trials in reviews: a systematic review of measurement properties
title_fullStr Identification of tools used to assess the external validity of randomized controlled trials in reviews: a systematic review of measurement properties
title_full_unstemmed Identification of tools used to assess the external validity of randomized controlled trials in reviews: a systematic review of measurement properties
title_short Identification of tools used to assess the external validity of randomized controlled trials in reviews: a systematic review of measurement properties
title_sort identification of tools used to assess the external validity of randomized controlled trials in reviews: a systematic review of measurement properties
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8985274/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35387582
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01561-5
work_keys_str_mv AT jungandres identificationoftoolsusedtoassesstheexternalvalidityofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsinreviewsasystematicreviewofmeasurementproperties
AT balzerjulia identificationoftoolsusedtoassesstheexternalvalidityofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsinreviewsasystematicreviewofmeasurementproperties
AT brauntobias identificationoftoolsusedtoassesstheexternalvalidityofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsinreviewsasystematicreviewofmeasurementproperties
AT luedtkekerstin identificationoftoolsusedtoassesstheexternalvalidityofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsinreviewsasystematicreviewofmeasurementproperties