基于证据的指南制定中评价系统评价的流行病学图形评价工具(GATE)的验证和修改

Anita Fitzgerald MPH, Catherine Coop MPH
{"title":"基于证据的指南制定中评价系统评价的流行病学图形评价工具(GATE)的验证和修改","authors":"Anita Fitzgerald MPH,&nbsp;Catherine Coop MPH","doi":"10.1016/j.ehrm.2010.11.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>There are many checklists and validity scales available to assess the quality of systematic reviews<span> and their content; New Zealand Guidelines Group is a not-for-profit organization that uses the Graphical Appraisal Tool for Epidemiology (GATE), a critical appraisal tool developed by the Effective Practice, Informatics and Quality Improvement collaboration in New Zealand, in guideline development. The objectives of this study were to test the interobserver reliability of individual items on the GATE systematic review checklist and to document reviewers’ experiences of using GATE in order to modify the checklist.</span></p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Two reviewers independently completed a GATE systematic review checklist for each study from a sample of 10 systematic reviews included in clinical practice guidelines. Agreement between reviewers was calculated for each item on the GATE checklist using percentage agreement; kappa, prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK), and reviewers’ experiences of using the tool were documented. The GATE tool was modified based on reviewers’ agreement.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Crude agreement between reviewers on individual GATE items ranged from 55% to 100%, with a median score of 73%. Interrater reliability was variable across individual items, ranging from a PABAK score of 0.09 (poor) to 1 (perfect), with a median score of 0.455 (moderate). Agreement and reliability were both highest for interpretation of subgroup analyses and summary scores of internal validity. Lowest scores related to individual items assessing reproducibility, publication bias, precision of results, and applicability. Agreement on the overall summary score was rated “good,” with 82% agreement and a PABAK score of 0.636. Following the appraisals, 7 question items on the GATE framework were amended and one question was deleted. In the accompanying notes, 12 changes were made.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The amended GATE checklist demonstrates clearer and easier-to-follow notes for appraising systematic reviews. This study demonstrates how the usability of critical appraisal checklists can be adapted through a formal evaluation process that could be undertaken alongside critiquing evidence.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":88882,"journal":{"name":"Health outcomes research in medicine","volume":"2 1","pages":"Pages e51-e59"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ehrm.2010.11.001","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation and Modification of the Graphical Appraisal Tool for Epidemiology (GATE) for Appraising Systematic Reviews in Evidence-based Guideline Development\",\"authors\":\"Anita Fitzgerald MPH,&nbsp;Catherine Coop MPH\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ehrm.2010.11.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>There are many checklists and validity scales available to assess the quality of systematic reviews<span> and their content; New Zealand Guidelines Group is a not-for-profit organization that uses the Graphical Appraisal Tool for Epidemiology (GATE), a critical appraisal tool developed by the Effective Practice, Informatics and Quality Improvement collaboration in New Zealand, in guideline development. The objectives of this study were to test the interobserver reliability of individual items on the GATE systematic review checklist and to document reviewers’ experiences of using GATE in order to modify the checklist.</span></p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Two reviewers independently completed a GATE systematic review checklist for each study from a sample of 10 systematic reviews included in clinical practice guidelines. Agreement between reviewers was calculated for each item on the GATE checklist using percentage agreement; kappa, prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK), and reviewers’ experiences of using the tool were documented. The GATE tool was modified based on reviewers’ agreement.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Crude agreement between reviewers on individual GATE items ranged from 55% to 100%, with a median score of 73%. Interrater reliability was variable across individual items, ranging from a PABAK score of 0.09 (poor) to 1 (perfect), with a median score of 0.455 (moderate). Agreement and reliability were both highest for interpretation of subgroup analyses and summary scores of internal validity. Lowest scores related to individual items assessing reproducibility, publication bias, precision of results, and applicability. Agreement on the overall summary score was rated “good,” with 82% agreement and a PABAK score of 0.636. Following the appraisals, 7 question items on the GATE framework were amended and one question was deleted. In the accompanying notes, 12 changes were made.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The amended GATE checklist demonstrates clearer and easier-to-follow notes for appraising systematic reviews. This study demonstrates how the usability of critical appraisal checklists can be adapted through a formal evaluation process that could be undertaken alongside critiquing evidence.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":88882,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health outcomes research in medicine\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"Pages e51-e59\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ehrm.2010.11.001\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health outcomes research in medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877131910000285\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health outcomes research in medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877131910000285","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

有许多检查表和效度量表可用于评估系统评价的质量及其内容;新西兰指南小组是一个非营利组织,在指南制定中使用流行病学图形评估工具(GATE),这是新西兰有效实践,信息和质量改进合作开发的关键评估工具。本研究的目的是测试GATE系统评核表中个别项目的观察者间信度,并记录评核者使用GATE系统评核表的经验,以便修改评核表。方法两名审稿人从临床实践指南中纳入的10项系统评价样本中独立完成了每项研究的GATE系统评价清单。对于GATE检查表上的每个项目,使用百分比协议来计算审稿人之间的协议;kappa,普遍调整偏差调整kappa (PABAK),以及审稿人使用该工具的经验被记录下来。根据审稿人的同意对GATE工具进行修改。结果审稿人对GATE个别项目的粗略同意度在55%到100%之间,中位数为73%。被测者的信度在个别项目之间是可变的,从0.09分(差)到1分(完美),中位数为0.455分(中等)。亚组分析的解释和内部效度的总结得分的一致性和信度都是最高的。最低分数与评估再现性、发表偏倚、结果精度和适用性的个别项目有关。总体总结得分的一致性被评为“良好”,一致性为82%,PABAK得分为0.636。评估结束后,对GATE框架的7个题项进行了修改,删除了1个题项。在附注中,作了12处修改。结论修订后的GATE清单为系统评价提供了更清晰、更易于遵循的注释。本研究展示了如何通过一个正式的评估过程来调整关键评估清单的可用性,该过程可以与批评证据一起进行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Validation and Modification of the Graphical Appraisal Tool for Epidemiology (GATE) for Appraising Systematic Reviews in Evidence-based Guideline Development

Background

There are many checklists and validity scales available to assess the quality of systematic reviews and their content; New Zealand Guidelines Group is a not-for-profit organization that uses the Graphical Appraisal Tool for Epidemiology (GATE), a critical appraisal tool developed by the Effective Practice, Informatics and Quality Improvement collaboration in New Zealand, in guideline development. The objectives of this study were to test the interobserver reliability of individual items on the GATE systematic review checklist and to document reviewers’ experiences of using GATE in order to modify the checklist.

Methods

Two reviewers independently completed a GATE systematic review checklist for each study from a sample of 10 systematic reviews included in clinical practice guidelines. Agreement between reviewers was calculated for each item on the GATE checklist using percentage agreement; kappa, prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK), and reviewers’ experiences of using the tool were documented. The GATE tool was modified based on reviewers’ agreement.

Results

Crude agreement between reviewers on individual GATE items ranged from 55% to 100%, with a median score of 73%. Interrater reliability was variable across individual items, ranging from a PABAK score of 0.09 (poor) to 1 (perfect), with a median score of 0.455 (moderate). Agreement and reliability were both highest for interpretation of subgroup analyses and summary scores of internal validity. Lowest scores related to individual items assessing reproducibility, publication bias, precision of results, and applicability. Agreement on the overall summary score was rated “good,” with 82% agreement and a PABAK score of 0.636. Following the appraisals, 7 question items on the GATE framework were amended and one question was deleted. In the accompanying notes, 12 changes were made.

Conclusions

The amended GATE checklist demonstrates clearer and easier-to-follow notes for appraising systematic reviews. This study demonstrates how the usability of critical appraisal checklists can be adapted through a formal evaluation process that could be undertaken alongside critiquing evidence.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
WITHDRAWN: Utility and Work Productivity Data for Economic Evaluation of Breast Cancer Therapies in the Netherlands and Sweden Health Care Utilization and Costs among Medicaid-enrolled Patients with Schizophrenia Experiencing Multiple Psychiatric Relapses Outcomes-based Risk-sharing Schemes: Is There a Potential Role in the Asia-Pacific Markets? Comparative Effectiveness of On-Pump versus Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Among Elderly Patients: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis Long-term Adherence to Hormone Therapy in Medicaid-enrolled Women with Breast Cancer
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1