Reliability of Chalmers' scale to assess quality in meta-analyses on pharmacological treatments for osteoporosis
Reliability of Chalmers' scale to assess quality in meta-analyses on pharmacological treatments for osteoporosis
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/s1047-2797(00)00069-7
复制
发表时间：
2000-11-01
影响因子：
5.6
通讯作者：
Myhal, D
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bérard, A;Andreu, N;Myhal, D
目的：本研究评估查尔默斯质量恐慌量表在绝经后妇女骨质流失和骨折率方面的评估者间和重测信度。方法：在 Medline 上进行详尽的文献检索，以找到研究药物使用对绝经后妇女骨质流失和骨折率影响的临床试验。随机选择 20 篇文章，四位评估者使用查尔默斯量表独立评估每篇文章的质量。在这 20 篇文章中，有 10 篇对作者姓名、期刊、出版年份和资金来源不知情。评估者还被要求在第一次评估两个月后再次评估所有 20 篇文章。计算组内 (ICC) 和重测相关系数。结果：总体评分者间 ICC 为 0.66 [0.55, 0.79](95%)。查尔默斯量表的整体重测信度为 0.81 [0.67, 0.98](95%)。当根据文章的盲法状态对评级进行分层时，盲法评估产生的评估者间 ICC 比非盲法更小：0.30 [0.17, 0.53](95%) VS。 0.80 [0.71, 0.90](95%) 此外，单独分析子量表会产生不同的可靠性估计。结论：这项研究表明，查尔默斯开发的质量量表的可靠性在子量表之间存在很大差异，并且高度依赖于文章的致盲状态。不能排除对非盲文章进行评级时出现偏差的可能性。量表的可靠性还取决于研究的结果。 (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. 保留所有权利。
PURPOSE: This study estimates the inter-rater and test-retest reliability of Chalmers' quality scare scale in the context of bone mass loss and fracture rate in postmenopausal women.METHODS: An exhaustive literature search was performed on Medline to locate clinical trials studying the effect of medication use on bone mass loss and fracture rate in postmenopausal women. Twenty articles were randomly selected and four raters independently assessed the quality of each article with Chalmers' scale. Among the 20 articles, 10 were blinded on authors' names, journal, year of publication and source of funding. Raters were also asked to assess all 20 articles one more time, two months after the first evaluation. Intraclass (ICC) and test-retest correlation coefficients were calculated.RESULTS: The overall inter-rater ICC was 0.66 [0.55, 0.79](95%). The overall test-retest reliability of Chalmers' scale was 0.81 [0.67, 0.98](95%) When ratings were stratified according to articles' blinding status, blinded assessments generated a smaller inter-rater ICC than non blinded assessments: 0.30 [0.17, 0.53](95%) VS. 0.80 [0.71, 0.90](95%) In addition, analyzing sub-scales separately generated different estimates of reliability.CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the reliability of the quality scale developed by Chalmers substantially varies between sub-scales, and is highly dependent on articles' blinding status. The possibility of bias in rating non-blinded articles can not be ruled out. The reliability of the scale can also be dependent on the outcome studied. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.