Sarina R Isenberg, Dio Kavalieratos, Ronald Chow, Lisa Le, Pete Wegier, Camilla Zimmermann
{"title":"Quality versus risk of bias assessment of palliative care trials: comparison of two tools.","authors":"Sarina R Isenberg, Dio Kavalieratos, Ronald Chow, Lisa Le, Pete Wegier, Camilla Zimmermann","doi":"10.1136/bmjspcare-2020-002539","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of palliative care interventions are challenging to conduct and evaluate. Tools used to judge the quality of RCTs do not account for the complexities of conducting research in seriously ill populations and may artificially downgrade confidence in palliative care research.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare assessments from the Palliative Care Trial Assessment Tool (PCTAT) and Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Reviewers assessed 43 RCTs using PCTAT and RoB. We compared assessments of each trial, assessed overall agreement (weighted kappa (K<sub>w</sub>)) and examined (dis)agreement for comparable items. We assessed quality of life at 1-3 months among trials grouped according to RoB or PCTAT score (using meta-analysis) and whether RoB or quality improved over time (Cochran-Armitage trend test).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 43 trials, those rated low RoB had a mean PCTAT score of 73 (SD 10); those rated high RoB had a mean PCTAT score of 56 (SD 14). Overall K<sub>w</sub> was 0.33 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.42). Total agreement between comparable items was observed for 56% of trials (24/43) and total disagreement for 21% (8/43). The standardised mean difference in quality of life was statistically significant among RCTs with low RoB and high PCTAT, but not for those with medium/low PCTAT or high/unclear RoB. Quality of reporting improved over time, whereas RoB did not.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although there was fair agreement between tools, areas of disagreement/non-comparability suggest the tools capture different aspects of bias/quality. A specific tool to evaluate quality of palliative care trials may be warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":9136,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care","volume":" ","pages":"e2571-e2579"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjspcare-2020-002539","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of palliative care interventions are challenging to conduct and evaluate. Tools used to judge the quality of RCTs do not account for the complexities of conducting research in seriously ill populations and may artificially downgrade confidence in palliative care research.
Objective: To compare assessments from the Palliative Care Trial Assessment Tool (PCTAT) and Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool.
Design: Reviewers assessed 43 RCTs using PCTAT and RoB. We compared assessments of each trial, assessed overall agreement (weighted kappa (Kw)) and examined (dis)agreement for comparable items. We assessed quality of life at 1-3 months among trials grouped according to RoB or PCTAT score (using meta-analysis) and whether RoB or quality improved over time (Cochran-Armitage trend test).
Results: Of 43 trials, those rated low RoB had a mean PCTAT score of 73 (SD 10); those rated high RoB had a mean PCTAT score of 56 (SD 14). Overall Kw was 0.33 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.42). Total agreement between comparable items was observed for 56% of trials (24/43) and total disagreement for 21% (8/43). The standardised mean difference in quality of life was statistically significant among RCTs with low RoB and high PCTAT, but not for those with medium/low PCTAT or high/unclear RoB. Quality of reporting improved over time, whereas RoB did not.
Conclusion: Although there was fair agreement between tools, areas of disagreement/non-comparability suggest the tools capture different aspects of bias/quality. A specific tool to evaluate quality of palliative care trials may be warranted.
期刊介绍：
Published quarterly in print and continuously online, BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care aims to connect many disciplines and specialties throughout the world by providing high quality, clinically relevant research, reviews, comment, information and news of international importance.
We hold an inclusive view of supportive and palliative care research and we are able to call on expertise to critique the whole range of methodologies within the subject, including those working in transitional research, clinical trials, epidemiology, behavioural sciences, ethics and health service research. Articles with relevance to clinical practice and clinical service development will be considered for publication.
In an international context, many different categories of clinician and healthcare workers do clinical work associated with palliative medicine, specialist or generalist palliative care, supportive care, psychosocial-oncology and end of life care. We wish to engage many specialties, not only those traditionally associated with supportive and palliative care. We hope to extend the readership to doctors, nurses, other healthcare workers and researchers in medical and surgical specialties, including but not limited to cardiology, gastroenterology, geriatrics, neurology, oncology, paediatrics, primary care, psychiatry, psychology, renal medicine, respiratory medicine.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
