...
首页> 外文期刊>Spine >Empirical evidence of an association between internal validity and effect size in randomized controlled trials of low-back pain.
【24h】

Empirical evidence of an association between internal validity and effect size in randomized controlled trials of low-back pain.

机译:在腰背部疼痛的随机对照试验中,内部有效性与疗效大小之间存在关联的经验证据。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a methodologic study. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the validity of the criteria list recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group Editorial Board by evaluating whether individual items and a total score are associated with effect sizes in randomized controlled trials of back-pain interventions. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is concern that studies of low methodologic quality may exaggerate the effectiveness of treatments for low back pain. We performed this study to examine the association between a common measure of internal validity and the reported magnitude of treatment effects. METHODS: We assessed the relationship between the 11 items contained in the Cochrane Back Review Group Internal Validity checklist and effect size in randomized trials of interventions for back pain. Of 267 trials in 15 Cochrane reviews that were eligible for inclusion, 51 were excluded, leaving 216 trials included in the analysis. The scores on the 11 items for each trial were taken from the original review. We extracted effect sizes from each low back pain trial. RESULTS: We found that trials that fulfilled a specific item had smaller effect sizes compared with trials that did not fulfill that item for 10 of the 11 items, and for 6 of the criteria, the absolute difference in effect sizes was 0.10 or greater. The 95% confidence interval of the difference in effect sizes crossed the null value in each case. The number of items fulfilled showed that trials with higher scores consistently reported smaller effect sizes than trials with lower scores. At the thresholds of 5 or 6 items fulfilled, the difference in effect sizes was 0.20 in each case (95% confidence intervals 0.05-0.35 and 0.06-0.34, respectively). Stratified analyses did not support confounding by intervention. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the 11-item Internal Validity Checklist is associated with effect size in randomized trials of interventions for back pain, and that our data support the use of a sum score of the number of fulfilled items in this list.
机译:研究设计:我们进行了方法学研究。目的:本研究的目的是通过评估背部疼痛干预的随机对照试验中的单个项目和总评分是否与效应大小相关联,以评估Cochrane背部评估小组编辑委员会建议的标准清单的有效性。背景数据概述:人们担心,方法学质量低下的研究可能会夸大腰痛治疗的有效性。我们进行了这项研究,以检查内部效度的通用度量与所报告的治疗效果之间的关联。方法:我们评估了Cochrane背部评估小组内部有效性检查表中包含的11个项目与背部疼痛干预措施随机试验的效应量之间的关系。在15项符合条件的Cochrane评价中的267项试验中,有51项被排除在外,剩下216项试验被纳入分析。每个试验的11个项目的评分均来自原始评价。我们从每个下腰痛试验中提取效果量。结果:我们发现,在11项中的10项中,达到特定项目的试验与未达到该项目的试验相比,具有较小的效应量;对于6项标准,效应量的绝对差值为0.10或更大。效果大小差异的95%置信区间在每种情况下都超过了零值。满足的项目数量表明,分数较高的试验始终要比分数较低的试验报告较小的疗效。在达到5项或6项的阈值时,每种情况下效应大小的差异为0.20(95%置信区间分别为0.05-0.35和0.06-0.34)。分层分析不支持通过干预进行混淆。结论:我们得出结论,在背部疼痛干预的随机试验中,11项内部有效性核对表与效果大小有关,并且我们的数据支持使用该表中已完成项目数的总和。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号