Interrater Reliability of the Modified Jadad Quality Scale for Systematic Reviews of Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Trials

Oremus, Mark; Wolfson, Christina; Perrault, Anne; Demers, Louise; Momoli, Franco; Moride, Yola

doi:10.1159/000051263

Cited by 357 publications

(232 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

230

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Included studies were evaluated using the modified Jadad score [29], the average score for quality was 5.9 of 8 possible points (Table 2). Data were extracted independently after all the eligible studies were recruited using a data abstraction form (Appendix 1.…”

Section: Search Strategy and Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Rotating-platform TKA No Different from Fixed-bearing TKA Regarding Survivorship or Performance: A Meta-analysis

Moskal

Capps²

2014

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Mobile bearings have been compared with fixed bearings used in TKA. However, rotating platforms, a specific type of mobile bearing, have not been compared with fixed-bearings using meta-analysis. Questions/purposes We asked whether the performance of a rotating-platform bearing is superior to, comparable to, or worse than a fixed bearing. Four areas were investigated: clinical performance, component alignment, adverse event rates, and revision rates. Methods Searches of Medline, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane databases, combined with reference lists from published meta-analyses and systematic reviews of mobile-bearing versus fixed-bearing prostheses used in TKAs, provided 17 nonlanguage-restricted studies consisting of 1910 TKAs (966 rotating platform versus 944 fixed bearing). Random-effect modeling was used for all meta-analyses, thereby mitigating possible effects of heterogeneity among studies. All meta-analyses were examined for publication bias using funnel plots; publication bias was not detected for any meta-analysis. Results There were no statistically or clinically significant differences in clinical performance (clinical scores, ROM, and radiographic evaluation), component alignment, revision rates, or adverse event rates except for tibial component alignment in the AP plane, which favored TKA with fixed-bearings (p = 0.020; standardized mean difference, 0.229; 95% CI, 0.035-0.422), but the effect size was small enough that it was not considered clinically important. Conclusions Based on our findings, which agree substantially with those of prior systematic reviews of TKAs with mobile-bearing versus fixed-bearing prostheses, there is no compelling case for either rotating-platform or fixedbearing implant design in terms of clinical performance, component alignment, adverse event frequencies, or survivorship. This dataset, which was limited to a maximum 6 years followup, is insufficient to address questions related to wear or late revisions. We therefore suggest that implant choice should be made on the basis of other factors, perhaps including cost or surgeon experience.

show abstract

Section: Search Strategy and Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Rotating-platform TKA No Different from Fixed-bearing TKA Regarding Survivorship or Performance: A Meta-analysis

Moskal

Capps²

2014

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Two reviewers independently graded each RCT using the modified Jadad scale [20], an eight-item scale designed to assess randomisation, blinding, withdrawals/dropouts, inclusion/exclusion criteria, adverse effects and statistical analysis and is presented in Table 1. The score for each article can range from 0 (lowest quality) to 8 (highest quality).…”

Section: Study Quality Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Internal versus external fixation for unstable distal radius fractures: an up-to-date meta-analysis

Cui

Pan

et al. 2011

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Our aim was to compare the effect of internal vs external fixation for unstable distal radius fractures regarding postoperative complications, clinical results and radiological outcomes. Methods We selected PubMed; Cochrane Library; EMBASE; BIOSIS; Ovid and the relevant English orthopaedic journals and pooled data from ten eligible randomised controlled trials containing 738 patients to conduct a subgroup analysis according to different periods of followup. Our aim was to summarise the best available evidence. Results Results showed that compared with external fixation, internal fixation led to significantly fewer total surgical complications [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39-0.81, P=0.002] and reduced the incidence of pin-track infections (95% CI 0.08-0.46, P=0.0002) after a one year follow-up. For clinical results, grip strength (95% CI 1.59-8.25, P=0.004), supination (95% CI 13.99-48.83, P=0.0004) and pronation (95% CI 5.61-26.09, P=0.002) were superior in the internal fixation group six weeks postoperatively, and the same results were obtained three months postoperatively for grip strength (95% CI 3.21-13.47, P=0.001) and supination (95% CI 3.61-16.01, P=0.002).Meanwhile, the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score was superior in the internal fixation group at three months (95% CI −20.62 to −2.07, P=0.02) and after one year (95% CI −14.37 to −2.32, P=0.007) follow-up. Conclusions We suggest that the final results are significant and there is some evidence supporting the use of open reduction and internal fixation.

show abstract

“…Global Health (1) scale$; (2) critical appraisal tool; (3) critical appraisal; (4) critical appraisal review; (5) appraisal of research methodology; (6) research design review; (7) quality assessment; (8) 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7; (9) randomized controlled trial; (10) 8 and 9 80 HealthSTAR (1) scale$; (2) critical appraisal tool; (3) critical appraisal; (4) critical appraisal review; (5) appraisal of research methodology; (6) research design review; (7) quality assessment; (8) 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7; (9) randomized controlled trial; (10) The included studies accounted for 21 scales and their modifications including: Jadad, 15,17,19,25,27,[60][61][62]64,[67][68][69]71,72,78,80,118,120,121,144 Maastricht, 3,62,126 Delphi List, 23,28,79,[81][82][83]90,92,99,[107][108][109][110] 13, 74,77,130,131,140,141 Maastricht-Amsterdam List (MAL), 29,85-90,93-97,99 -102,104 -106,112, 113,143 Van Tulder, 81, 82, 84, 91,92,98,103,107,108,110,111,114,142 Bizzini,26 Chalmers, 14,16,22,63,65,70,117,124,125,[127][128][129]138,139 Reisch,122,123 Andrew,115,116 Imperiale, 135 Detsky, 16,59 Cho and Bero, 119 Balas, 133 Sindhu, 20 Downs and Black,134 Nguyen, 137 Oxford Pain Validity Scale (OPVS), 21 Arrivé, 76 18,66,73,…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…138 The Jadad Scale also has been adapted for use in many health care areas such as medicine, dentistry, psychology, and physical therapy 15,17,19,25,60,61,64,68,69,71,80,118,120,121,144 (Tab. 2).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Scales to Assess the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and PurposeThe methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is commonly evaluated in order to assess the risk of biased estimates of treatment effects. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify scales used to evaluate the methodological quality of RCTs in health care research and summarize the content, construction, development, and psychometric properties of these scales. MethodsExtensive electronic database searches, along with a manual search, were performed. ResultsOne hundred five relevant studies were identified. They accounted for 21 scales and their modifications. The majority of scales had not been rigorously developed or tested for validity and reliability. The Jadad Scale presented the best validity and reliability evidence; however, its validity for physical therapy trials has not been supported. Discussion and ConclusionMany scales are used to evaluate the methodological quality of RCTs, but most of these scales have not been adequately developed and have not been adequately tested for validity and reliability. A valid and reliable scale for the assessment of the methodological quality of physical therapy trials needs to be developed. T he medical literature is an important resource to guide clinical decision making and research. The evaluation of the methodological quality of studies is an essential step in the process of selecting the best clinical literature. According to Verhagen et al, 1 assessment of methodological quality involves evaluation of internal validity (the degree to which a study's design, conduct, and analysis have minimized biases) and external validity (the extent to which the results of a study can be generalized outside the experimental situation) as well as statistical analysis of primary research. Taken together, these validity constructs are important in determining the methodological quality of primary research. Khan et al 2 pointed out that some reasons for performing quality assessment include: to determine a minimum quality threshold for the selection of the primary studies for a systematic review; to explore differences in quality as an explanation for heterogeneity in study results; to weigh the results in proportion to the quality in metaanalysis; and, more importantly, to guide interpretation of findings, help determine the strength of inferences, and guide recommendations for future research and clinical practice.The assessment of the quality of controlled trials is essential because variations in the quality of trials can affect the conclusions about the existing evidence. 3 In a review of trials evaluating primarily medical treatments, Moher and colleagues 4,5 demonstrated that trials that did not include features such as blinding and allocation concealment tended to report an exaggerated treatment effect compared with trials that did include these features. These facts emphasize the importance of methodological quality assessment in order to provide accurate information on therapeutic effects.Trial quality can be divided ...

show abstract

Interrater Reliability of the Modified Jadad Quality Scale for Systematic Reviews of Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Trials

Cited by 357 publications

References 21 publications

Rotating-platform TKA No Different from Fixed-bearing TKA Regarding Survivorship or Performance: A Meta-analysis

Rotating-platform TKA No Different from Fixed-bearing TKA Regarding Survivorship or Performance: A Meta-analysis

Internal versus external fixation for unstable distal radius fractures: an up-to-date meta-analysis

Scales to Assess the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About