SynthesisPloS one2022
Extension of the Composite Quality Score (CQS) as an appraisal tool for prospective, controlled clinical therapy trials-A systematic review of meta-epidemiological evidence.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- I2 Statistic as the Selection Bias Test: Trial Effect Estimates in Relation to Identified Bias Levels.Cureus · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Selection Bias Risk in Randomized Controlled Trials Rated as Low Bias Using Risk of Bias, Version 2 (RoB2) Tool.Cureus · 2024Article
- Application of the Composite Quality Score (CQS-2B) versus Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool (Version 2) in systematic reviews of clinical trials - an exploratory study.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Inter-rater reliability of the extended Composite Quality Score (CQS-2).Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Allocation concealment appraisal of clinical therapy trials using the extended Composite Quality Score (CQS-2)-An empirically based update.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- The composite quality score for the appraisal of prospective controlled clinical therapy trials in systematic reviews and its limits.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo conduct a survey of current meta-epidemiological studies to identify additional trial design characteristics that may be associated with significant over- or underestimation of the treatment effect and to use such identified characteristics as a basis for the formulation of new CQS appraisal criteria. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrieved eligible studies from two systematic reviews on this topic (latest search May 2015) and searched the databases PubMed and Embase for further studies from June 2015 -March 2022. All data were extracted by one author and verified by another. Sufficiently homogeneous estimates from single studies were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Trial design characteristics associated with statistically significant estimates from single datasets (which could not be pooled) and meta-analyses were used as a basis to formulate new or amend existing CQS criteria.
resultsA total of 38 meta-epidemiological studies were identified. From these, seven trial design characteristics associated with statistically significant over- or underestimation of the true therapeutic effect were found.
conclusionOne new criterion concerning double-blinding was added to the CQS, and the original criteria for concealing the random allocation sequence and for minimum sample size were amended.
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.