Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: comparing reviewers' to authors' assessments.
Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: comparing reviewers' to authors' assessments.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1471-2288-14-45
复制
发表时间：
2014-04-01
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Loeb M
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lo CK;Mertz D;Loeb M
缺乏适当的方法学细节的报告先前已被证明扭曲随机对照试验中的偏倚风险评估。观察性研究也可能是如此。本研究的目的是比较Newcastle-Ottawa量表（NOS）评估的评价者和队列研究作者之间的偏倚风险，该队列研究包括在已发表的关于流感感染患者严重结局风险因素的系统性综述中。纳入了纳入系统性综述并在2008-2011年期间发表的队列研究。通讯作者或第一作者完成了涵盖所有NOS项目的调查。将结果与系统评价的评价者应用的NOS评估进行比较。使用kappa（K）统计量计算评估者间可靠性。65/182（36%）研究的作者完成了调查。评价者的总体NOS评分（中位数= 6;四分位距[IQR] 6-6）显著高于作者的评分（中位数= 5，IQR 4-6）（p < 0.001）。各项目的评估者间可靠性范围为轻微（K = 0.15，95%置信区间[CI] =-0.19，0.48）至较差（K =-0.06，95% CI =-0.22，0.10）。总体评分的可靠性较差（K =-0.004，95%CI =-0.11，0.11）。评价的差异和评价者与作者之间的低一致性表明，在系统评价中应用NOS时，需要联系作者了解研究中未发表的信息。
Lack of appropriate reporting of methodological details has previously been shown to distort risk of bias assessments in randomized controlled trials. The same might be true for observational studies. The goal of this study was to compare the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) assessment for risk of bias between reviewers and authors of cohort studies included in a published systematic review on risk factors for severe outcomes in patients infected with influenza. Cohort studies included in the systematic review and published between 2008–2011 were included. The corresponding or first authors completed a survey covering all NOS items. Results were compared with the NOS assessment applied by reviewers of the systematic review. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using kappa (K) statistics. Authors of 65/182 (36%) studies completed the survey. The overall NOS score was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in the reviewers’ assessment (median = 6; interquartile range [IQR] 6–6) compared with those by authors (median = 5, IQR 4–6). Inter-rater reliability by item ranged from slight (K = 0.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.19, 0.48) to poor (K = −0.06, 95% CI = −0.22, 0.10). Reliability for the overall score was poor (K = −0.004, 95% CI = −0.11, 0.11). Differences in assessment and low agreement between reviewers and authors suggest the need to contact authors for information not published in studies when applying the NOS in systematic reviews.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
2.9
作者：
Oremus M;Oremus C;Hall GB;McKinnon MC;ECT & Cognition Systematic Review Team
通讯作者：
ECT & Cognition Systematic Review Team
影响因子：
7.2
作者：
Devereaux, PJ;Choi, PTL;Guyatt, GH
通讯作者：
Guyatt, GH
影响因子：
8.5
作者：
Ben-David, Arie
通讯作者：
Ben-David, Arie
影响因子：
--
作者：
Soares, HP;Daniels, S;Djulbegovic, B
通讯作者：
Djulbegovic, B
影响因子：
12
作者：
Strijbos, JW;Martens, RL;Jochems, WMG
通讯作者：
Jochems, WMG