ArticlePloS one2015
The Use of Bayesian Networks to Assess the Quality of Evidence from Research Synthesis: 2. Inter-Rater Reliability and Comparison with Standard GRADE Assessment.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Identification of tools used to assess the external validity of randomized controlled trials in reviews: a systematic review of measurement properties.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Pooled it
- Tools for assessing risk of reporting biases in studies and syntheses of studies: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2018Pooled it
- Automation of systematic reviews of biomedical literature: a scoping review of studies indexed in PubMed.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
- LAVA HyperSense and deep-learning reconstruction for near-isotropic (3D) enhanced magnetic resonance enterography in patients with Crohn's disease: utility in noise reduction and image quality improvement.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2023Article
- EA3: A softmax algorithm for evidence appraisal aggregation.PloS one · 2021Article
- High quality of evidence is uncommon in Cochrane systematic reviews in Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Emergency Medicine.European journal of anaesthesiology · 2017Article
- Article
- The use of Bayesian networks to assess the quality of evidence from research synthesis: 1.PloS one · 2015Article
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
backgroundThe grades of recommendation, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach is widely implemented in systematic reviews, health technology assessment and guideline development organisations throughout the world. We have previously reported on the development of the Semi-Automated Quality Assessment Tool (SAQAT), which enables a semi-automated validity assessment based on GRADE criteria. The main advantage to our approach is the potential to improve inter-rater agreement of GRADE assessments particularly when used by less experienced researchers, because such judgements can be complex and challenging to apply without training. This is the first study examining the inter-rater agreement of the SAQAT.
methodsWe conducted two studies to compare: a) the inter-rater agreement of two researchers using the SAQAT independently on 28 meta-analyses and b) the inter-rater agreement between a researcher using the SAQAT (who had no experience of using GRADE) and an experienced member of the GRADE working group conducting a standard GRADE assessment on 15 meta-analyses.
resultsThere was substantial agreement between independent researchers using the Quality Assessment Tool for all domains (for example, overall GRADE rating: weighted kappa 0.79; 95% CI 0.65 to 0.93). Comparison between the SAQAT and a standard GRADE assessment suggested that inconsistency was parameterised too conservatively by the SAQAT. Therefore the tool was amended. Following amendment we found fair-to-moderate agreement between the standard GRADE assessment and the SAQAT (for example, overall GRADE rating: weighted kappa 0.35; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.87).
conclusionsDespite a need for further research, the SAQAT may aid consistent application of GRADE, particularly by less experienced researchers.
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.