ArticleBMJ open2012
Inter-rater and test-retest reliability of quality assessments by novice student raters using the Jadad and Newcastle-Ottawa Scales.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
101 citing papers in PubMed, 44 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Ethnic Disparities in Cardiovascular Disease: A Comparative Analysis of Asian and Central Asian Populations.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Pooled it
- Low-Dose Aspirin Recommendations for Preeclampsia Risk Reduction: A Systematic Review Focused on Black Patients : Current Hypertension Reports.Current hypertension reports · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluation of Carbamazepine and Gabapentin's Safety and Efficacy in Trigeminal Neuralgia Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening · 2026Pooled it
- Association of Skipping Breakfast with Metabolic Syndrome and Its Components: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.Nutrients · 2025Pooled it
- Mitochondrial DNA Copy Numbers and Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Pooled it
- Risk Factors for Patellofemoral Pain in the Military: Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.Journal of athletic training · 2025Pooled it
- The association between gonadectomy and timing of gonadectomy, and the risk of canine cranial cruciate ligament disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Veterinary surgery : VS · 2025Pooled it
- Associations between retirement, social security policies and the health of older people: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2024Pooled it
- Malnutrition-Related Health Outcomes in Older Adults with Hip Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Nutrients · 2024Pooled it
- Association of parathyroid hormone with risk of hypertension and type 2 diabetes: a dose-response meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Pooled it
- Laparoscopic vs. open portoenterostomy for biliary atresia: a meta-analysis of pediatric surgical outcomes.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Pooled it
- Relationship between serum uric acid levels and uric acid lowering therapy with the prognosis of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Effects of weight change on taste function; a systematic review.Nutrition journal · 2023Pooled it
- Association of proton pump inhibitors with gastric and colorectal cancer risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Pooled it
- Effect of different disinfectants on preventing asymptomatic bacteriuria and catheter-related urinary tract infection: a network meta-analysis.Frontiers in urology · 2023Pooled it
- 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 · 2022Pooled it
- Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in venous thromboembolism patients: a meta-analysis of real-world studies.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2022Pooled it
- Pharmacological and somatic treatment effects on suicide in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Depression and anxiety · 2022Pooled it
- Standard- vs. low-dose rivaroxaban in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Pooled it
- Effect of taurine administration on symptoms, severity, or clinical outcome of dilated cardiomyopathy and heart failure in humans: a systematic review.Wellcome open research · 2022Pooled it
41 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.