Assessment of the risk of bias in rehabilitation reviews
Authors: Farmer, S.E., Wood, D., Swain, I.D. and Pandyan, A.D.
Journal: International Journal of Rehabilitation Research
Volume: 35
Issue: 4
Pages: 317-322
ISSN: 0342-5282
DOI: 10.1097/MRR.0b013e3283559b6b
Abstract:Systematic reviews are used to inform practice, and develop guidelines and protocols. A questionnaire to quantify the risk of bias in systematic reviews, the review paper assessment (RPA) tool, was developed and tested. A search of electronic databases provided a data set of review articles that were then independently reviewed by two assessors using the RPA. The inter-rater reliability was between moderate and good (κ scores 0.46-0.95). Many reviews did not describe the purpose in terms of population, intervention, comparator and outcome measure (i.e. PICO format), making inter-rater agreement on this question difficult. The RPA discriminated between high-quality reviews and those with a risk of bias (e.g. inadequate reporting of search terms, lack of independent reviewing or inclusion of non-randomized-controlled trials). The RPA questionnaire was revised to ensure that questions (on the basis of clarity of purpose, extent of search, independence of reviewers, randomized-controlled trial inclusion and availability of data) had dichotomous answers so that the positive responses scored one. The risk of bias increases as the score reduces. © 2012 Wolters Kluwer Health Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Source: Scopus
Preferred by: Ian Swain
Assessment of the risk of bias in rehabilitation reviews.
Authors: Farmer, S.E., Wood, D., Swain, I.D. and Pandyan, A.D.
Journal: Int J Rehabil Res
Volume: 35
Issue: 4
Pages: 317-322
eISSN: 1473-5660
DOI: 10.1097/MRR.0b013e3283559b6b
Abstract:Systematic reviews are used to inform practice, and develop guidelines and protocols. A questionnaire to quantify the risk of bias in systematic reviews, the review paper assessment (RPA) tool, was developed and tested. A search of electronic databases provided a data set of review articles that were then independently reviewed by two assessors using the RPA. The inter-rater reliability was between moderate and good (κ scores 0.46-0.95). Many reviews did not describe the purpose in terms of population, intervention, comparator and outcome measure (i.e. PICO format), making inter-rater agreement on this question difficult. The RPA discriminated between high-quality reviews and those with a risk of bias (e.g. inadequate reporting of search terms, lack of independent reviewing or inclusion of non-randomized-controlled trials). The RPA questionnaire was revised to ensure that questions (on the basis of clarity of purpose, extent of search, independence of reviewers, randomized-controlled trial inclusion and availability of data) had dichotomous answers so that the positive responses scored one. The risk of bias increases as the score reduces.
Source: PubMed
Assessment of the risk of bias in rehabilitation reviews
Authors: Farmer, S.E., Wood, D., Swain, I.D. and Pandyan, A.D.
Journal: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION RESEARCH
Volume: 35
Issue: 4
Pages: 317-322
eISSN: 1473-5660
ISSN: 0342-5282
DOI: 10.1097/MRR.0b013e3283559b6b
Source: Web of Science (Lite)
Assessment of the risk of bias in rehabilitation reviews.
Authors: Farmer, S.E., Wood, D., Swain, I.D. and Pandyan, A.D.
Journal: International journal of rehabilitation research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Rehabilitationsforschung. Revue internationale de recherches de readaptation
Volume: 35
Issue: 4
Pages: 317-322
eISSN: 1473-5660
ISSN: 0342-5282
DOI: 10.1097/mrr.0b013e3283559b6b
Abstract:Systematic reviews are used to inform practice, and develop guidelines and protocols. A questionnaire to quantify the risk of bias in systematic reviews, the review paper assessment (RPA) tool, was developed and tested. A search of electronic databases provided a data set of review articles that were then independently reviewed by two assessors using the RPA. The inter-rater reliability was between moderate and good (κ scores 0.46-0.95). Many reviews did not describe the purpose in terms of population, intervention, comparator and outcome measure (i.e. PICO format), making inter-rater agreement on this question difficult. The RPA discriminated between high-quality reviews and those with a risk of bias (e.g. inadequate reporting of search terms, lack of independent reviewing or inclusion of non-randomized-controlled trials). The RPA questionnaire was revised to ensure that questions (on the basis of clarity of purpose, extent of search, independence of reviewers, randomized-controlled trial inclusion and availability of data) had dichotomous answers so that the positive responses scored one. The risk of bias increases as the score reduces.
Source: Europe PubMed Central