Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2015 Jun 6:8:224.
doi: 10.1186/s13104-015-1181-1.

Failure of a numerical quality assessment scale to identify potential risk of bias in a systematic review: a comparison study

Seán R O'Connor  1   2   3 , Mark A Tully  4   5 , Brigid Ryan  6 , Judy M Bradley  7 , George D Baxter  8 , Suzanne M McDonough  9   10
Affiliations
Review

Failure of a numerical quality assessment scale to identify potential risk of bias in a systematic review: a comparison study

Seán R O'Connor et al. BMC Res Notes. .

Abstract

Background: Assessing methodological quality of primary studies is an essential component of systematic reviews. Following a systematic review which used a domain based system [United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF)] to assess methodological quality, a commonly used numerical rating scale (Downs and Black) was also used to evaluate the included studies and comparisons were made between quality ratings assigned using the two different methods. Both tools were used to assess the 20 randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials examining an exercise intervention for chronic musculoskeletal pain which were included in the review. Inter-rater reliability and levels of agreement were determined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Influence of quality on pooled effect size was examined by calculating the between group standardized mean difference (SMD).

Results: Inter-rater reliability indicated at least substantial levels of agreement for the USPSTF system (ICC 0.85; 95% CI 0.66, 0.94) and Downs and Black scale (ICC 0.94; 95% CI 0.84, 0.97). Overall level of agreement between tools (ICC 0.80; 95% CI 0.57, 0.92) was also good. However, the USPSTF system identified a number of studies (n = 3/20) as "poor" due to potential risks of bias. Analysis revealed substantially greater pooled effect sizes in these studies (SMD -2.51; 95% CI -4.21, -0.82) compared to those rated as "fair" (SMD -0.45; 95% CI -0.65, -0.25) or "good" (SMD -0.38; 95% CI -0.69, -0.08).

Conclusions: In this example, use of a numerical rating scale failed to identify studies at increased risk of bias, and could have potentially led to imprecise estimates of treatment effect. Although based on a small number of included studies within an existing systematic review, we found the domain based system provided a more structured framework by which qualitative decisions concerning overall quality could be made, and was useful for detecting potential sources of bias in the available evidence.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Estimates of treatment effect size for pain data according to quality rating using the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) system.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):W65–W94. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kirkham JJ, Gargon E, Clarke M, Williamson PR. Can a core outcome set improve the quality of systematic reviews?—a survey of the Co-ordinating Editors of Cochrane Review Groups. Trials. 2013;14:21. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-21. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, Gamble C, Dodd S, Smyth R, et al. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ. 2010;340:c365. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c365. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hartling L, Ospina M, Liang Y, Dryden DM, Hooton N, Krebs Seida J, et al. Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2009;339:b4012. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b4012. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, Schulz KF, Jüni P, Altman DG, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2008;336(7644):601–605. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39465.451748.AD. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms