Agreement of Risk-of-Bias varied in systematic reviews on acupuncture and was associated with methodological quality
Agreement of Risk-of-Bias varied in systematic reviews on acupuncture and was associated with methodological quality
复制标题
针灸系统评价中偏倚风险的一致性各不相同，并且与方法学质量相关
DOI：
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.08.017
复制
发表时间：
2021-01-01
影响因子：
7.2
通讯作者：
Du, Liang
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Long, Youlin;Luo, Shanxia;Du, Liang
目的：本研究的目的是评价针灸系统评价(SRS)中纳入重叠随机对照试验(RCT)的风险评估的一致性。研究设计和地点：检索数据库中针灸SRS。计算加权kappa(Kappa)统计量，用Logistic回归分析不一致的因素。结果：在109个针灸随机对照研究中，纳入241个随机对照试验。不一致的百分比从25%到44%不等，在随机序列生成(kappa=0.57)、分配隐藏(kappa=0.50)和不完整的结果数据(kappa=0.50)方面有中等的一致性，此外在盲目参与者和人员(kappa=0.44)、结果评估的盲目性(kappa=0.31)和选择性报告(kappa=0.39)方面也是相当一致的。只有19%的随机对照试验被评估为完全一致。方法质量(随机序列生成，优势比(OR)=3.46)、国际合作(分配隐瞒，OR=0.14；结果数据不完整，OR=0.14；选择性报告，OR=0.05)和偏见风险报告完整性评分(选择性报告，OR=0.53)显著影响不一致的相对几率。方法质量似乎是解释分歧的首要因素。(C)Elsevier Inc.出版的2020年。
Objectives: The objective of the study was to evaluate the consistency of risk of bias assessments for overlapping randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in systematic reviews (SRs) on acupuncture.Study Design and Setting: Databases were searched for acupuncture SRs. A weighted kappa (kappa) statistic was calculated, and logistic regression was used to explore the factors of disagreements.Results: We included 241 RCTs from 109 SRs on acupuncture. The percentage disagreements ranged from 25% to 44%, with moderate agreement for random sequence generation (kappa = 0.57), allocation concealment (kappa = 0.50), and incomplete outcome data (kappa = 0.50), besides fair agreement for blinding of participants and personnel (kappa = 0.44), blinding of outcome assessment (kappa = 0.31), and selective reporting (kappa = 0.39). Only 19% RCTs were evaluated completely consistent. Methodological quality (random sequence generation, odds ratio (OR) = 3.46), international cooperation (allocation concealment, OR = 0.14; incomplete outcome data, OR = 0.14; selective reporting, OR = 0.05), and risk of bias reporting completeness score (selective reporting, OR = 0.53) significantly affected the relative odds of disagreements.Conclusion: The level of agreement varied from fair to moderate agreement depending on the risk of bias domain. Methodological quality appears to be an overarching factor to account for disagreements. (C) 2020 Published by Elsevier Inc.