IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0222770.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Anne M Moseley
  • Prinon Rahman
  • George A Wells
  • Joshua R Zadro
  • Catherine Sherrington
  • Karine Toupin-April
  • Lucie Brosseau

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Anne M Moseley & Prinon Rahman & George A Wells & Joshua R Zadro & Catherine Sherrington & Karine Toupin-April & Lucie Brosseau, 2019. "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," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-16, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0222770
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222770
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0222770
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0222770&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0222770?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. Susan Armijo-Olivo & Bruno R da Costa & Greta G Cummings & Christine Ha & Jorge Fuentes & Humam Saltaji & Matthias Egger, 2015. "PEDro or Cochrane to Assess the Quality of Clinical Trials? A Meta-Epidemiological Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-14, July.
    2. Susan Armijo-Olivo & Maria Ospina & Bruno R da Costa & Matthias Egger & Humam Saltaji & Jorge Fuentes & Christine Ha & Greta G Cummings, 2014. "Poor Reliability between Cochrane Reviewers and Blinded External Reviewers When Applying the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool in Physical Therapy Trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(5), pages 1-10, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Holger Cramer & Romy Lauche & Hoda Azizi & Gustav Dobos & Jost Langhorst, 2014. "Yoga for Multiple Sclerosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-11, November.
    2. Maaike M Rademaker & Geerte G J Ramakers & Adriana L Smit & Lotty Hooft & Inge Stegeman, 2020. "The effect of the CONSORT statement on the amount of “unclear” Risk of Bias reporting in Cochrane Systematic Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-9, July.
    3. Susan Armijo-Olivo & Bruno R da Costa & Greta G Cummings & Christine Ha & Jorge Fuentes & Humam Saltaji & Matthias Egger, 2015. "PEDro or Cochrane to Assess the Quality of Clinical Trials? A Meta-Epidemiological Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-14, July.

    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:pone00:0222770. 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.