ReviewBMC medical research methodology2013
Inconsistency in the items included in tools used in general health research and physical therapy to evaluate the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials: a descriptive analysis.
Review in BMC medical research methodology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 6 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Quality appraisal for systematic literature reviews of health state utility values: a descriptive analysis.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Pooled it
- Methodological tools and sensitivity analysis for assessing quality or risk of bias used in systematic reviews published in the high-impact anesthesiology journals.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Pooled it
- The effectiveness of virtual reality based interventions for symptoms of anxiety and depression: A meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2018Pooled it
- Non-pharmacological cancer pain interventions in populations with social disparities: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2016Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Manual Therapy and Therapeutic Exercise for Temporomandibular Disorders: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Physical therapy · 2016Pooled it
- PEDro or Cochrane to Assess the Quality of Clinical Trials? A Meta-Epidemiological Study.PloS one · 2015Pooled it
- Quality Appraisal in Systematic Literature Reviews of Studies Eliciting Health State Utility Values: Conceptual Considerations.PharmacoEconomics · 2024Article
- Exercise-Based Muscle Development Programmes and Their Effectiveness in the Functional Recovery of Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Current evidence from the Randomized Controlled Trials Rehabilitation Checklist (RCTRACK) reporting guideline project.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2020Article
- Usability and sensitivity of the risk of bias assessment tool for randomized controlled trials of pharmacist interventions.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2019Article
- Article
- Rehabilitation interventions for improving balance following stroke: An overview of systematic reviews.PloS one · 2019Review
- The effect of a short term conservative physiotherapy versus occlusive splinting on pain and range of motion in cases of myogenic temporomandibular joint dysfunction: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of physical therapy science · 2018Article
- A mapping review of randomized controlled trials in the spinal cord injury research literature.Spinal cord · 2018Review
- Influence of blinding on treatment effect size estimate in randomized controlled trials of oral health interventions.BMC medical research methodology · 2018Article
- Article
- Article
- [Not Available].Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada · 2015Article
- Identifying items to assess methodological quality in physical therapy trials: a factor analysis.Physical therapy · 2014Article
- Article
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
Abstract
backgroundAssessing the risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is crucial to understand how biases affect treatment effect estimates. A number of tools have been developed to evaluate risk of bias of RCTs; however, it is unknown how these tools compare to each other in the items included. The main objective of this study was to describe which individual items are included in RCT quality tools used in general health and physical therapy (PT) research, and how these items compare to those of the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool.
methodsWe used comprehensive literature searches and a systematic approach to identify tools that evaluated the methodological quality or risk of bias of RCTs in general health and PT research. We extracted individual items from all quality tools. We calculated the frequency of quality items used across tools and compared them to those in the RoB tool. Comparisons were made between general health and PT quality tools using Chi-squared tests.
resultsIn addition to the RoB tool, 26 quality tools were identified, with 19 being used in general health and seven in PT research. The total number of quality items included in general health research tools was 130, compared with 48 items across PT tools and seven items in the RoB tool. The most frequently included items in general health research tools (14/19, 74%) were inclusion and exclusion criteria, and appropriate statistical analysis. In contrast, the most frequent items included in PT tools (86%, 6/7) were: baseline comparability, blinding of investigator/assessor, and use of intention-to-treat analysis. Key items of the RoB tool (sequence generation and allocation concealment) were included in 71% (5/7) of PT tools, and 63% (12/19) and 37% (7/19) of general health research tools, respectively.
conclusionsThere is extensive item variation across tools that evaluate the risk of bias of RCTs in health research. Results call for an in-depth analysis of items that should be used to assess risk of bias of RCTs. Further empirical evidence on the use of individual items and the psychometric properties of risk of bias tools is needed.
Indexed as
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.