Literature DB >> 24786942

Identifying items to assess methodological quality in physical therapy trials: a factor analysis.

Susan Armijo-Olivo1, Greta G Cummings2, Jorge Fuentes3, Humam Saltaji4, Christine Ha5, Annabritt Chisholm6, Dion Pasichnyk7, Todd Rogers8.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Numerous tools and individual items have been proposed to assess the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The frequency of use of these items varies according to health area, which suggests a lack of agreement regarding their relevance to trial quality or risk of bias.
OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were: (1) to identify the underlying component structure of items and (2) to determine relevant items to evaluate the quality and risk of bias of trials in physical therapy by using an exploratory factor analysis (EFA).
DESIGN: A methodological research design was used, and an EFA was performed.
METHODS: Randomized controlled trials used for this study were randomly selected from searches of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Two reviewers used 45 items gathered from 7 different quality tools to assess the methodological quality of the RCTs. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted using the principal axis factoring (PAF) method followed by varimax rotation.
RESULTS: Principal axis factoring identified 34 items loaded on 9 common factors: (1) selection bias; (2) performance and detection bias; (3) eligibility, intervention details, and description of outcome measures; (4) psychometric properties of the main outcome; (5) contamination and adherence to treatment; (6) attrition bias; (7) data analysis; (8) sample size; and (9) control and placebo adequacy. LIMITATION: Because of the exploratory nature of the results, a confirmatory factor analysis is needed to validate this model.
CONCLUSIONS: To the authors' knowledge, this is the first factor analysis to explore the underlying component items used to evaluate the methodological quality or risk of bias of RCTs in physical therapy. The items and factors represent a starting point for evaluating the methodological quality and risk of bias in physical therapy trials. Empirical evidence of the association among these items with treatment effects and a confirmatory factor analysis of these results are needed to validate these items.
© 2014 American Physical Therapy Association.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24786942      PMCID: PMC4155037          DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20130464

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Ther        ISSN: 0031-9023


  31 in total

1.  Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodologic quality.

Authors:  Karin Huwiler-Müntener; Peter Jüni; Christoph Junker; Matthias Egger
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-06-05       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 2.  The impact of trial baseline imbalances should be considered in systematic reviews: a methodological case study.

Authors:  Rebecca Trowman; Jo C Dumville; David J Torgerson; Gillian Cranny
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2007-08-24       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials.

Authors:  J Pildal; A Hróbjartsson; K J Jørgensen; J Hilden; D G Altman; P C Gøtzsche
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-05-21       Impact factor: 7.196

4.  Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study.

Authors:  Lesley Wood; Matthias Egger; Lise Lotte Gluud; Kenneth F Schulz; Peter Jüni; Douglas G Altman; Christian Gluud; Richard M Martin; Anthony J G Wood; Jonathan A C Sterne
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-03-03

Review 5.  Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-Cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy.

Authors:  Anne M Moseley; Mark R Elkins; Robert D Herbert; Christopher G Maher; Catherine Sherrington
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2009-03-17       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 6.  Scales to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials: a systematic review.

Authors:  Susan Armijo Olivo; Luciana Gazzi Macedo; Inae Caroline Gadotti; Jorge Fuentes; Tasha Stanton; David J Magee
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2007-12-11

7.  A tool to evaluate rapidly the quality of clinical trials on topical acne treatment.

Authors:  J Revuz; D Moyse; F Poli; H Pawin; M Faure; M Chivot; C Beylot; B Dréno
Journal:  J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 6.166

8.  Assessing the impact of attrition in randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Catherine E Hewitt; Bharathy Kumaravel; Jo C Dumville; David J Torgerson
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2010-06-22       Impact factor: 6.437

9.  Modified intention to treat reporting in randomised controlled trials: systematic review.

Authors:  Iosief Abraha; Alessandro Montedori
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-06-14

Review 10.  The effects of excluding patients from the analysis in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study.

Authors:  Eveline Nüesch; Sven Trelle; Stephan Reichenbach; Anne W S Rutjes; Elizabeth Bürgi; Martin Scherer; Douglas G Altman; Peter Jüni
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-09-07
View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  What is the influence of randomisation sequence generation and allocation concealment on treatment effects of physical therapy trials? A meta-epidemiological study.

Authors:  Susan Armijo-Olivo; Humam Saltaji; Bruno R da Costa; Jorge Fuentes; Christine Ha; Greta G Cummings
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-09-03       Impact factor: 2.692

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.