Search Registry

Registry of Systematic Reviews - Search Results

Found 1 entry matching your search criteria.

1. Citation: O'Connor, S. R., Tully, M. A., Ryan, B., Bradley, J. M., Baxter, G. D., & McDonough, S. M. (2015). Failure of a numerical quality assessment scale to identify potential risk of bias in a systematic review: a comparison study. BMC Research Notes, 8, 224-015-1181-1. doi:10.1186/s13104-015-1181-1
Keywords: Quality assessment, Risk of bias, Systematic review methods
Abstract: Compares assessments of the methodological quality of primary studies (20 randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials examining an exercise intervention for chronic musculoskeletal pain) using a domain-based system, that of the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF)] vs. that of the Downs and Black (D&B) numerical rating scale.  Finds substantial levels of inter-rater reliability agreement for the USPSTF system and the Downs and Black scale. The overall level of agreement between the tools was also good. However, the USPSTF system identified 3 of 20 studies as "poor" due to potential risks of bias, which indeed had greater pooled effect sizes than the studies rated "fair" or "good". Concludes that the D&B fails to identify studies at increased risk of bias, and can lead to imprecise estimates of treatment effect.
Full-Text Availability Options:yes see URI 2:
Link to Full Text:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=26048813
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4467625/
Record Updated:2016-12-02
 

Home or Search again