Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26161653›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

PEDro or Cochrane to Assess the Quality of Clinical Trials? A Meta-Epidemiological Study.

Susan Armijo-Olivo, Bruno R da Costa, Greta G Cummings, Christine Ha, Jorge Fuentes, Humam Saltaji, Matthias Egger

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 32 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 32 pooled it
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 32 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 166 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Exercise and pulmonary embolism: a systematic review of exercise safety, feasibility and effectiveness.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025
    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. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

4 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Susan Armijo-OlivoCLEAR (Connecting Leadership, Education, and Research) Outcomes Research Program, University of Alberta, Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada; Rehabilitation Research Center, Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Bruno R da CostaUniversitat Bern, Institute of Primary Health Care, Gesellschaftstrasse 49, Bern, 3013, Switzerland.
Greta G CummingsCLEAR (Connecting Leadership, Education, and Research) Outcomes Research Program, University of Alberta, Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Christine HaRehabilitation Research Center, Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Jorge FuentesRehabilitation Research Center, Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada; Catholic University of Maule, Department of Physical Therapy, Talca, Chile.
Humam SaltajiOrthodontic Graduate Program, School of Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Matthias EggerInstitute of Social & Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
University of Alberta · CAInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine · CHUniversity of Bern · CH

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThere is debate on how the methodological quality of clinical trials should be assessed. We compared trials of physical therapy (PT) judged to be of adequate quality based on summary scores from the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale with trials judged to be of adequate quality by Cochrane Risk of Bias criteria.

designMeta-epidemiological study within Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

methodsMeta-analyses of PT trials were identified in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. For each trial PeDro and Cochrane assessments were extracted from the PeDro and Cochrane databases. Adequate quality was defined as adequate generation of random sequence, concealment of allocation, and blinding of outcome assessors (Cochrane criteria) or as trials with a PEDro summary score ≥5 or ≥6 points. We combined trials of adequate quality using random-effects meta-analysis.

resultsForty-one Cochrane reviews and 353 PT trials were included. All meta-analyses included trials with PEDro scores ≥5, 37 (90.2%) included trials with PEDro scores ≥6 and only 22 (53.7%) meta-analyses included trials of adequate quality according to the Cochrane criteria. Agreement between PeDro and Cochrane was poor for PeDro scores of ≥5 points (kappa = 0.12; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.16) and slight for ≥6 points (kappa 0.24; 95% CI 0.16-0.32). When combining effect sizes of trials deemed to be of adequate quality according to PEDro or Cochrane criteria, we found that a substantial difference in the combined effect size (≥0.15) was evident in 9 (22%) out of the 41 meta-analyses for PEDro cutoff ≥5 and 10 (24%) for cutoff ≥6.

conclusionsThe PeDro and Cochrane approaches lead to different sets of trials of adequate quality, and different combined treatment estimates from meta-analyses of these trials. A consistent approach to assessing RoB in trials of physical therapy should be adopted.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicEpidemiologic StudiesHumansSample Size

Identifiers

PMID26161653
PMCPMC4498768
OpenAlexW1561379059

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.