MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2974146296 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0222770

Agreement between the Cochrane risk of bias tool and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale: A meta-epidemiological study of randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions

2019· article· en· W2974146296 on OpenAlexafffund
Anne M. Moseley, Prinon Rahman, George A. Wells, Joshua R Zadro, Catherine Sherrington, Karine Toupin‐April, Lucie Brosseau

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsBlindingMedicineRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyIntraclass correlationCochrane LibraryCohen's kappaSystematic reviewMeta-analysisKappaMEDLINEPsychological interventionStatisticsClinical psychologyInternal medicinePsychometricsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Cochrane risk of bias (CROB) tool and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale are used to evaluate risk of bias of randomized controlled trials. We assessed the level of agreement between the instruments. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library to identify trials included in systematic reviews evaluating physical therapy interventions. For trials that met our inclusion criteria (primary reference in Cochrane review, review used CROB (2008 version), indexed in PEDro), CROB items were extracted from the reviews and PEDro items and total score were downloaded from PEDro. Kappa statistics were used to determine the agreement between CROB and PEDro scale items that evaluate similar constructs (e.g., randomization). The total PEDro score was compared to the CROB summary score (% of items met) using an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient. Sensitivity analyses explored the impact of the CROB "unclear" category and variants of CROB blinding items. Kappa statistics were used to determine agreement between different thresholds for "acceptable" risk of bias between CROB and PEDro scale summary scores. RESULTS: We included 1442 trials from 108 Cochrane reviews. Agreement was "moderate" for three of the six CROB and PEDro scale items that evaluate similar constructs (allocation concealment, participant blinding, assessor blinding; Kappa = 0.479-0.582). Agreement between the summary scores was "poor" (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient = 0.285). Agreement was highest when the CROB "unclear" category was collapsed with "high" and when participant, personnel and assessor blinding were evaluated separately in CROB. Agreement for different thresholds for "acceptable" risk of bias between CROB and PEDro summary scores was, at best, "fair". CONCLUSION: There was moderate agreement for half of the PEDro and CROB items that evaluate similar constructs. Interpretation of the CROB "unclear" category and variants of the CROB blinding items substantially influenced agreement. Either instrument can be used to quantify risk of bias, but they can't be used interchangeably.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.462
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.265
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.447
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4620.265
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0430.012
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.878
GPT teacher head0.578
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations180
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207