Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool: methodological research
Top Cited Papers
- 5 January 2012
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Wiley in Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
- Vol. 18 (1) , 12-18
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01516.x
Abstract
Background The Cochrane Collaboration is strongly encouraging the use of a newly developed tool, the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool (CCRBT), for all review groups. However, the psychometric properties of this tool to date have yet to be described. Thus, the objective of this study was to add information about psychometric properties of the CCRBT including inter‐rater reliability and concurrent validity, in comparison with the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool (EPHPP).Methods Both tools were used to assess the methodological quality of 20 randomized controlled trials included in our systematic review of the effectiveness of knowledge translation interventions to improve the management of cancer pain. Each study assessment was completed independently by two reviewers using each tool. We analysed the inter‐rater reliability of each tool's individual domains, as well as final grade assigned to each study.Results The EPHPP had fair inter‐rater agreement for individual domains and excellent agreement for the final grade. In contrast, the CCRBT had slight inter‐rater agreement for individual domains and fair inter‐rater agreement for final grade. Of interest, no agreement between the two tools was evident in their final grade assigned to each study. Although both tools were developed to assess ‘quality of the evidence’, they appear to measure different constructs.Conclusions Both tools performed quite differently when evaluating the risk of bias or methodological quality of studies in knowledge translation interventions for cancer pain. The newly introduced CCRBT assigned these studies a higher risk of bias. Its psychometric properties need to be more thoroughly validated, in a range of research fields, to understand fully how to interpret results from its application.Keywords
This publication has 48 references indexed in Scilit:
- Clinical Trials Focusing on Cancer Pain Educational Interventions: Core Components to Include During Planning and ReportingJournal of Pain and Symptom Management, 2010
- Recommendations by Cochrane Review Groups for assessment of the risk of bias in studiesBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2008
- The use of a responder analysis to identify differences in patient outcomes following a self-care intervention to improve cancer pain managementPain, 2007
- Criteria for the systematic review of health promotion and public health interventionsHealth Promotion International, 2005
- Can Just-in-Time, Evidence-Based “Reminders” Improve Pain Management Among Home Health Care Nurses and Their Patients?Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 2005
- Improving Cancer Pain Management by Homecare NursesOncology Nursing Forum, 2004
- A Process for Systematically Reviewing the Literature: Providing the Research Evidence for Public Health Nursing InterventionsWorldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 2004
- Longitudinal Documentation of Cancer Pain Management Outcomes: A Pilot Study at a VA Medical CenterJournal of Pain and Symptom Management, 2002
- Education for pain management: A pilot studyPatient Education and Counseling, 1987
- Bias in Treatment Assignment in Controlled Clinical TrialsNew England Journal of Medicine, 1983