IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0017242.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Applying the Risk of Bias Tool in a Systematic Review of Combination Long-Acting Beta-Agonists and Inhaled Corticosteroids for Persistent Asthma

Author

Listed:
  • Lisa Hartling
  • Kenneth Bond
  • Ben Vandermeer
  • Jennifer Seida
  • Donna M Dryden
  • Brian H Rowe

Abstract

Background: The Risk of Bias (RoB) tool is used to assess internal validity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Our objectives were to: 1) evaluate inter-rater agreement of the RoB tool; 2) determine the time to access supplemental study information; 3) compare the RoB tool with the Jadad scale and Schulz allocation concealment (AC); and 4) examine the relationship between RoB and effect estimates. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of long-acting beta agonists (LABA) combined with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for adults with persistent asthma. Two reviewers independently assessed 107 trials using RoB, Jadad, and AC. One reviewer searched for study protocols. We assessed inter-rater agreement using weighted Kappa (κ) and the correlation between tools using Kendall's Tau (τ). Mean differences in effect sizes for RCTs with different RoB were calculated using inverse variance method and random effects model. Results: Trials had good Jadad scores (median 4, IQR 3-4); however, 85% had unclear AC and 87% high RoB. The factor that most influenced RoB was the potential inappropriate influence of study sponsors (95% industry funded). Agreement on RoB domains was fair (κ = 0.40) to almost perfect (κ = 0.86), and moderate for overall RoB (κ = 0.41). Median time to complete RoB assessments was 21 minutes (IQR 14-27) and 12 minutes (IQR 9-16) to search for protocols. Protocols were identified for 5/42 studies (12%); in 3 cases the assessment of selective outcome reporting changed. There was low correlation between overall RoB vs. Jadad (τ = 0.04, p = 0.3) and AC (τ = −0.02, p = 0.7). Analyses comparing effect estimates and risk showed no important patterns. Conclusions: Inter-rater agreement on RoB assessments was better than previously reported suggesting that review-specific guidelines are important. The correlation between RoB and Jadad was low suggesting measurement of different constructs (risk of bias vs. quality of reporting). The extensive involvement of the pharmaceutical industry in this LABA/ICS research should raise concerns about potential overestimates of treatment effects.

Suggested Citation

  • Lisa Hartling & Kenneth Bond & Ben Vandermeer & Jennifer Seida & Donna M Dryden & Brian H Rowe, 2011. "Applying the Risk of Bias Tool in a Systematic Review of Combination Long-Acting Beta-Agonists and Inhaled Corticosteroids for Persistent Asthma," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(2), pages 1-6, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0017242
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017242
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0017242
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0017242&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0017242?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. An-Wen Chan, 2008. "Bias, Spin, and Misreporting: Time for Full Access to Trial Protocols and Results," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(11), pages 1-3, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Humam Saltaji & Susan Armijo-Olivo & Greta G Cummings & Maryam Amin & Carlos Flores-Mir, 2017. "Randomized clinical trials in dentistry: Risks of bias, risks of random errors, reporting quality, and methodologic quality over the years 1955–2013," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-25, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Diana de la Iglesia & Miguel García-Remesal & Alberto Anguita & Miguel Muñoz-Mármol & Casimir Kulikowski & Víctor Maojo, 2014. "A Machine Learning Approach to Identify Clinical Trials Involving Nanodrugs and Nanodevices from ClinicalTrials.gov," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-15, October.
    2. S Swaroop Vedula & Tianjing Li & Kay Dickersin, 2013. "Differences in Reporting of Analyses in Internal Company Documents Versus Published Trial Reports: Comparisons in Industry-Sponsored Trials in Off-Label Uses of Gabapentin," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0017242. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.