ArticleCureus2023
Critical Hierarchical Appraisal and Reporting Tool for Composite Measures (CHAOS).
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
- The Upper Limits of Risk Ratios and Recommendations for Reporting Risk Ratios, Odds Ratios, and Rate Ratios.Cureus · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Composite measures are often used to represent certain concepts that cannot be measured with single variables and can be used as diagnoses, prognostic factors, or outcomes in clinical or health research. For example, frailty is a diagnosis confirmed based on the number of age-related symptoms and has been used to predict major health outcomes. However, undeclared assumptions and problems are prevalent among composite measures. Thus, we aim to propose a reporting guide and an appraisal tool for identifying these assumptions and problems. Methods We developed this reporting and assessment tool based on evidence and the consensus of experts pioneering research on index mining and syndrome mining. We designed a development framework for composite measures and then tested and revised it based on several composite measures commonly used in medical research, such as frailty, body mass index (BMI), mental illness diagnoses, and innovative indices mined for mortality prediction. We extracted review questions and reporting items from various issues identified by the development framework. This panel reviewed the identified issues, considered other aspects that might have been neglected in previous studies, and reached a consensus on the questions to be used by the reporting and assessment tool. Results We selected 19 questions in seven domains for reporting or critical assessment. Each domain contains review questions for authors and readers to critically evaluate the interpretability and validity of composite measures, which include candidate variable selection, variable inclusion and assumption declaration, data processing, weighting scheme, methods to aggregate information, composite measure interpretation and justification, and recommendations on the use. Conclusions For all seven domains, interpretability is central with respect to composite measures. Variable inclusion and assumptions are important clues to show the connection between composite measures and their theories. This tool can help researchers and readers understand the appropriateness of composite measures by exploring various issues. We recommend using this Critical Hierarchical Appraisal and repOrting tool for composite measureS (CHAOS) along with other critical appraisal tools to evaluate study design or risk of bias.
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.