Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement

被引:1868
作者
Hoy, Damian [1 ]
Brooks, Peter [2 ]
Woolf, Anthony [3 ]
Blyth, Fiona [4 ]
March, Lyn [4 ]
Bain, Chris [1 ]
Baker, Peter [1 ]
Smith, Emma [4 ]
Buchbinder, Rachelle [5 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Univ Queensland, Brisbane, Qld 4006, Australia
[2] Australian Hlth Workforce Inst, Melbourne, Vic 3010, Australia
[3] Peninsula Coll Med & Dent, Truro TR1 3LJ, England
[4] Univ Sydney, Royal N Shore Hosp, Sydney, NSW 2065, Australia
[5] Monash Univ, Cabrini Med Ctr, Melbourne, Vic 3144, Australia
[6] Cabrini Hosp, Melbourne, Vic 3144, Australia
关键词
Assessment; Bias; Prevalence; Instrument; Quality; Review; LOW-BACK-PAIN; QUALITY; GUIDELINES;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.014
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:934 / 939
页数:6
相关论文
共 28 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2004, BMC MED RES METHODOL
[2]  
[Anonymous], STATA 10 1 TX 2009
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2007, QUAL ASS TOOL QUANT
[4]  
[Anonymous], SYSTEMATIC REV CRDS
[6]  
Deeks J J, 2003, Health Technol Assess, V7, piii
[7]   Does back pain prevalence really decrease with increasing age? A systematic review [J].
Dionne, CE ;
Dunn, KM ;
Croft, PR .
AGE AND AGEING, 2006, 35 (03) :229-234
[8]   The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions [J].
Downs, SH ;
Black, N .
JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH, 1998, 52 (06) :377-384
[9]  
Feinstein A., 2002, PRINCIPLES MED STAT
[10]   The prevalence of neck pain in the world population: a systematic critical review of the literature [J].
Fejer, Rene ;
Kyvik, Kirsten Ohm ;
Hartvigsen, Jan .
EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2006, 15 (06) :834-848