Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22855629›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2012

Inter-rater and test-retest reliability of quality assessments by novice student raters using the Jadad and Newcastle-Ottawa Scales.

Mark Oremus, Carolina Oremus, Geoffrey B C Hall, Margaret C McKinnon, ECT & Cognition Systematic Review Team

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 101 papers, 44 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
101citing papers in PubMed, 44 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

101 citing papers in PubMed, 44 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. No difference between lag screw and helical blade for cephalomedullary nail cut-out a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2022
    Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

41 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Mark OremusMcMaster Evidence-based Practice Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Carolina Oremus
Geoffrey B C Hall
Margaret C McKinnon
ECT & Cognition Systematic Review Team

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionQuality assessment of included studies is an important component of systematic reviews.

objectiveThe authors investigated inter-rater and test-retest reliability for quality assessments conducted by inexperienced student raters.

designStudent raters received a training session on quality assessment using the Jadad Scale for randomised controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for observational studies. Raters were randomly assigned into five pairs and they each independently rated the quality of 13-20 articles. These articles were drawn from a pool of 78 papers examining cognitive impairment following electroconvulsive therapy to treat major depressive disorder. The articles were randomly distributed to the raters. Two months later, each rater re-assessed the quality of half of their assigned articles.

settingMcMaster Integrative Neuroscience Discovery and Study Program.

participants10 students taking McMaster Integrative Neuroscience Discovery and Study Program courses.

main outcome measuresThe authors measured inter-rater reliability using κ and the intraclass correlation coefficient type 2,1 or ICC(2,1). The authors measured test-retest reliability using ICC(2,1).

resultsInter-rater reliability varied by scale question. For the six-item Jadad Scale, question-specific κs ranged from 0.13 (95% CI -0.11 to 0.37) to 0.56 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.83). The ranges were -0.14 (95% CI -0.28 to 0.00) to 0.39 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.81) for the NOS cohort and -0.20 (95% CI -0.49 to 0.09) to 1.00 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.00) for the NOS case-control. For overall scores on the six-item Jadad Scale, ICC(2,1)s for inter-rater and test-retest reliability (accounting for systematic differences between raters) were 0.32 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.52) and 0.55 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.67), respectively. Corresponding ICC(2,1)s for the NOS cohort were -0.19 (95% CI -0.67 to 0.35) and 0.62 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.83), and for the NOS case-control, the ICC(2,1)s were 0.46 (95% CI -0.13 to 0.92) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.95).

conclusionsInter-rater reliability was generally poor to fair and test-retest reliability was fair to excellent. A pilot rating phase following rater training may be one way to improve agreement.

Identifiers

PMID22855629
PMCPMC4400798

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.