ReviewFrontiers in medicine2023
The composite quality score for the appraisal of prospective controlled clinical therapy trials in systematic reviews and its limits.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Systematic reviews of prospective controlled clinical therapy trials are one of the most important sources of information in modern medicine. Besides the systematic search for and statistical pooling of current clinical trial data for a particular type of therapy, systematic reviews also have the task of appraising the quality of trial results. The quality of trial results may be diminished by low internal trial validity, due to systematic error (bias). A high risk of bias may likely cause the reported trial results to be diverted from the actual true therapeutic effect and thus render it unsuitable for clinical guidance. According to the Cochrane Collaboration, the risk of bias in clinical therapy trials should be assessed using its Risk of Bias tool, Version 2 (RoB 2). However, the tool has been established to have poor inter-rater reliability, with a limited empirical evidence base and described as complex and demanding. Against this background, the composite quality score (CQS) has been developed as a possible alternative trial appraisal tool, characterised by high epistemic rigour, empirical evidence base, inter-rater reliability and ease of use. This article presents the current evidence of the CQS and its limitations.
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.