Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement
Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.014
复制
发表时间：
2012-09-01
影响因子：
7.2
通讯作者：
Buchbinder, Rachelle
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hoy, Damian;Brooks, Peter;Buchbinder, Rachelle
目的：在对腰痛和颈痛的患病率进行系统评价的过程中，我们需要一种工具来评估研究偏倚的风险。我们的目标是（1）修改现有的检查表和（2）测试最终的工具interrateragreement.Study设计和设置：最终的工具包括10个项目，解决四个领域的偏见加上一个概括的风险评估的偏见。两名研究人员通过独立评估54项随机选择的研究来测试该工具的评价者间一致性。评价者之间的协议整体和每个单独的项目进行了评估，使用协议的比例和Kappa statistics.Results：评价者发现该工具易于使用，并有较高的评价者之间的协议：总体协议为91%，Kappa统计为0.82（95%置信区间：0.76，0.86）。协议几乎是完美的工具和温和的总结assessment.Conclusion：我们已经解决了一个研究差距，通过修改和测试的工具，以评估风险的研究偏见的个别项目。进一步的研究可能有助于评估该工具在不同条件下的适用性。(c)2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Objective: In the course of performing systematic reviews on the prevalence of low back and neck pain, we required a tool to assess the risk of study bias. Our objectives were to (1) modify an existing checklist and (2) test the final tool for interrater agreement.Study Design and Setting: The final tool consists of 10 items addressing four domains of bias plus a summary risk of bias assessment. Two researchers tested the interrater agreement of the tool by independently assessing 54 randomly selected studies. Interrater agreement overall and for each individual item was assessed using the proportion of agreement and Kappa statistic.Results: Raters found the tool easy to use, and there was high interrater agreement: overall agreement was 91% and the Kappa statistic was 0.82 (95% confidence interval: 0.76, 0.86). Agreement was almost perfect for the individual items on the tool and moderate for the summary assessment.Conclusion: We have addressed a research gap by modifying and testing a tool to assess risk of study bias. Further research may be useful for assessing the applicability of the tool across different conditions. (c) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.