Poor reliability between Cochrane reviewers and blinded external reviewers when applying the Cochrane risk of bias tool in physical therapy trials

Armijo-Olivo, Susan; Ospina, Maria; Da Costa, Bruno; Egger, Matthias; Saltaji, Humam; Fuentes-Contreras, Jorge; Ha, Christine; Cummings, Greta G.

Mostrar el registro sencillo de la publicación

dc.contributor.author	Armijo-Olivo, Susan
dc.contributor.author	Ospina, Maria
dc.contributor.author	Da Costa, Bruno
dc.contributor.author	Egger, Matthias
dc.contributor.author	Saltaji, Humam
dc.contributor.author	Fuentes-Contreras, Jorge
dc.contributor.author	Ha, Christine
dc.contributor.author	Cummings, Greta G.
dc.date.accessioned	2017-11-09T15:33:19Z
dc.date.available	2017-11-09T15:33:19Z
dc.date.issued	2014
dc.identifier.uri	http://repositorio.ucm.cl/handle/ucm/1159
dc.description.abstract	Objectives: To test the inter-rater reliability of the RoB tool applied to Physical Therapy (PT) trials by comparing ratings from Cochrane review authors with those of blinded external reviewers. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in PT were identified by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for meta-analysis of PT interventions. RoB assessments were conducted independently by 2 reviewers blinded to the RoB ratings reported in the Cochrane reviews. Data on RoB assessments from Cochrane reviews and other characteristics of reviews and trials were extracted. Consensus assessments between the two reviewers were then compared with the RoB ratings from the Cochrane reviews. Agreement between Cochrane and blinded external reviewers was assessed using weighted kappa (k). Results: In total, 109 trials included in 17 Cochrane reviews were assessed. Inter-rater reliability on the overall RoB assessment between Cochrane review authors and blinded external reviewers was poor (k = 0.02, 95%CI: 20.06, 0.06]). Inter-rater reliability on individual domains of the RoB tool was poor (median k = 0.19), ranging from k = 20.04 (‘‘Other bias’’) to k = 0.62 (‘‘Sequence generation’’). There was also no agreement (k = 20.29, 95%CI: 20.81, 0.35]) in the overall RoB assessment at the meta-analysis level. Conclusions: Risk of bias assessments of RCTs using the RoB tool are not consistent across different research groups. Poor agreement was not only demonstrated at the trial level but also at the meta-analysis level. Results have implications for decision making since different recommendations can be reached depending on the group analyzing the evidence. Improved guidelines to consistently apply the RoB tool and revisions to the tool for different health areas are needed.	es_CL
dc.language.iso	en	es_CL
dc.rights	Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 Chile	*
dc.rights.uri	http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/cl/	*
dc.source	PLoS ONE, 9(5), e96920	es_CL
dc.title	Poor reliability between Cochrane reviewers and blinded external reviewers when applying the Cochrane risk of bias tool in physical therapy trials	es_CL
dc.type	Article	es_CL
dc.ucm.facultad	Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud	es_CL
dc.ucm.indexacion	Scopus	es_CL
dc.ucm.indexacion	Isi	es_CL
dc.ucm.doi	doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0096920	es_CL