Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34379191›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2021

The Composite Quality Score (CQS) as a trial appraisal tool: inter-rater reliability and rating time.

Steffen Mickenautsch, Ivana Miletić, Stefan Rupf, Jone Renteria, Gerd Göstemeyer

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
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.

Steffen MickenautschReview Center For Health Science Research, 84 Concorde Road East, Bedfordview/Johannesburg, 2008, South Africa. neem@global.co.za.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4994-2328
Ivana MiletićDepartment of Endodontics and Restorative Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Gunduliceva 5, 10 000, Zagreb, Croatia.
Stefan RupfClinic of Operative Dentistry, Periodontology & Preventive Dentistry, Saarland University Hospital, Building 73, 66421, Homburg, Germany.
Jone RenteriaOpen University of Catalonia - University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Gerd GöstemeyerDepartment of Operative and Preventive Dentistry, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Assmannshauser Str. 4 - 6, Berlin, 14197, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo establish the CQS inter-rater reliability and rating time and to compare both against that of the Jadad scale and Cochrane's Risk of Bias Tool (ROBT). MATERIAL AND

methodsFour independent raters rated 45 trial reports. The inter-rater reliability was established by use of the Brennan-Prediger coefficient (BPC). The coefficients were compared using the two-sample z-test. Secondary analysis included comparison of the inter-rater reliability of the randomization component of all tools, as well as of the allocation concealment component of the CQS to that of the ROBT. The mean rating time with standard deviation (SD) for each tool was determined using one-way repeated measures analysis of variance. Post hoc comparisons were made using the Tukey-Kramer adjustment for three pair-wise multiple comparisons.

resultsThe inter-rater reliability was significantly higher for the CQS (BPC, 95% CI: 0.95, 0.87-1.00) compared to Jadad (0.70, 0.58-0.82) (adjusted p = 0.0005) and most components of ROBT. The mean (SD) time to complete the CQS (4.0 (1.0) min) did not differ significantly from that of the Jadad scale 4.8 (1.1) min (adjusted p = 0.11), but was significantly shorter compared to that of the ROBT 15.3 (5.9) min (adjusted p < 0.0001).

conclusionsThe results suggest the CQS to be a very reliable and fast trial appraisal tool. Clinical relevance The higher the inter-rater reliability, the higher the probability that trial results reflect therapeutic truth. The CQS will need to take further bias sources into consideration, in order to increase its utility.

Indexed as

Reproducibility of ResultsHumansObserver VariationClinical trial appraisalComposite quality scoreInter-rater reliabilityTherapy trials

Identifiers

PMID34379191

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.