ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023
Inter-rater reliability of the extended Composite Quality Score (CQS-2).
Article 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- 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
- Inter-rater reliability of the extended Composite Quality Score (CQS-2).Frontiers in medicine · 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
8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To establish the inter-rater reliability of the Composite Quality Score (CQS-2) and to test the null hypothesis that it did not differ significantly from that of the first CQS version (CQS-1). Materials and methods: Four independent raters were selected to rate 45 clinical trial reports using CQS-1 and CQS-2. The raters remained unaware of each other's participation in this study until all rating had been completed. Each rater received only one rating template at a time in a random sequence for CQS-1 and CQS-2 rating. Raters completed each template and sent these back to the principal investigator. Each rater received their next template 2 weeks after submission of the completed previous template. The inter-rater reliabilities for the overall appraisal score of the CQS-1 and the CQS-2 were established by using the Brennan-Prediger coefficient (BPC). The coefficients of both CQS versions were compared by using the two-sample Results: The BPC for the CQS-1 was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.64-1.00) and for the CQS-2 it was 1.00 (95% CI: 0.94-1.00), suggesting a very high inter-rater reliability for both. The difference between the two CQS versions was statistically not significant ( Conclusion: The CQS-2 is still under development, This study shows that it is associated with a very high inter-rater reliability, which did not statistically significantly differ from that of the CQS-1. The promising results of this study warrant further investigation in the applicability of the CQS-2 as an appraisal tool for prospective controlled clinical therapy trials.
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.