MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389410166 · doi:10.1186/s13643-023-02389-w

Inter-rater reliability of risk of bias tools for non-randomized studies

2023· article· en· W4389410166 on OpenAlexaffabout
Isabel Kalaycioglu, Bastien Rioux, Joel Neves Briard, Ahmad Nehme, Lahoud Touma, Bénédicte Dansereau, Ariane Veilleux-Carpentier, Mark R. Keezer

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicReliability and Agreement in Measurement
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntraclass correlationChecklistMedicineReliability (semiconductor)Inter-rater reliabilityScale (ratio)StatisticsRating scaleMathematicsClinical psychologyPsychometricsPsychologyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: There is limited knowledge on the reliability of risk of bias (ROB) tools for assessing internal validity in systematic reviews of exposure and frequency studies. We aimed to identify and then compare the inter-rater reliability (IRR) of six commonly used tools for frequency (Loney scale, Gyorkos checklist, American Academy of Neurology [AAN] tool) and exposure (Newcastle-Ottawa scale, SIGN50 checklist, AAN tool) studies. METHODS: Six raters independently assessed the ROB of 30 frequency and 30 exposure studies using the three respective ROB tools. Articles were rated as low, intermediate, or high ROB. We calculated an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for each tool and category of ROB tool. We compared the IRR between ROB tools and tool type by inspection of overlapping ICC 95% CIs and by comparing their coefficients after transformation to Fisher's Z values. We assessed the criterion validity of the AAN ROB tools by calculating an ICC for each rater in comparison with the original ratings from the AAN. RESULTS: All individual ROB tools had an IRR in the substantial range or higher (ICC point estimates between 0.61 and 0.80). The IRR was almost perfect (ICC point estimate > 0.80) for the AAN frequency tool and the SIGN50 checklist. All tools were comparable in IRR, except for the AAN frequency tool which had a significantly higher ICC than the Gyorkos checklist (p = 0.021) and trended towards a higher ICC when compared to the Loney scale (p = 0.085). When examined by category of ROB tool, scales, and checklists had a substantial IRR, whereas the AAN tools had an almost perfect IRR. For the criterion validity of the AAN ROB tools, the average agreement between our raters and the original AAN ratings was moderate. CONCLUSION: All tools had substantial IRRs except for the AAN frequency tool and the SIGN50 checklist, which both had an almost perfect IRR. The AAN ROB tools were the only category of ROB tools to demonstrate an almost perfect IRR. This category of ROB tools had fewer and simpler criteria. Overall, parsimonious tools with clear instructions, such as those from the AAN, may provide more reliable ROB assessments.

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)0.181
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.411
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.609
Threshold uncertainty score0.844

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1810.411
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.492
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.023 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicReliability and Agreement in MeasurementFrench-language works237,207