Methodologically rigorous risk of bias tools for nonrandomized studies had low reliability and high evaluator burden.
J Clin Epidemiol
; 128: 140-147, 2020 12.
Article
en En
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-32987166
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE:
To assess the real-world interrater reliability (IRR), interconsensus reliability (ICR), and evaluator burden of the Risk of Bias (RoB) in Nonrandomized Studies (NRS) of Interventions (ROBINS-I), and the ROB Instrument for NRS of Exposures (ROB-NRSE) tools. STUDY DESIGN ANDSETTING:
A six-center cross-sectional study with seven reviewers (2 reviewer pairs) assessing the RoB using ROBINS-I (n = 44 NRS) or ROB-NRSE (n = 44 NRS). We used Gwet's AC1 statistic to calculate the IRR and ICR. To measure the evaluator burden, we assessed the total time taken to apply the tool and reach a consensus.RESULTS:
For ROBINS-I, both IRR and ICR for individual domains ranged from poor to substantial agreement. IRR and ICR on overall RoB were poor. The evaluator burden was 48.45 min (95% CI 45.61 to 51.29). For ROB-NRSE, the IRR and ICR for the majority of domains were poor, while the rest ranged from fair to perfect agreement. IRR and ICR on overall RoB were slight and poor, respectively. The evaluator burden was 36.98 min (95% CI 34.80 to 39.16).CONCLUSIONS:
We found both tools to have low reliability, although ROBINS-I was slightly higher. Measures to increase agreement between raters (e.g., detailed training, supportive guidance material) may improve reliability and decrease evaluator burden.Palabras clave
Texto completo:
1
Banco de datos:
MEDLINE
Asunto principal:
Investigadores
/
Diseño de Investigaciones Epidemiológicas
/
Consenso
Tipo de estudio:
Etiology_studies
/
Guideline
/
Observational_studies
/
Prevalence_studies
/
Risk_factors_studies
Límite:
Humans
Idioma:
En
Revista:
J Clin Epidemiol
Asunto de la revista:
EPIDEMIOLOGIA
Año:
2020
Tipo del documento:
Article