Faillie Jean-Luc, Ferrer Pili, Gouverneur Amandine, Driot Damien, Berkemeyer Shoma, Vidal Xavier, Martínez-Zapata Maria José, Huerta Consuelo, Castells Xavier, Rottenkolber Marietta, Schmiedl Sven, Sabaté Mònica, Ballarín Elena, Ibáñez Luisa
Laboratory of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health (EA2415), Faculty of Medicine, Institut Universitaire de Recherche Clinique, University of Montpellier, 641 Avenue du Doyen Gaston Giraud, Montpellier 34093, France; Department of Medical Pharmacology and Toxicology, CHU Montpellier University Hospital, 371 Avenue du Doyen Gaston Giraud, Montpellier 34295, France.
Catalan Institute of Pharmacology Foundation (FICF), Department of Pharmacology Therapeutics and Toxicology, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Clinical Pharmacology Unit, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Pg. Vall d'Hebron 119-129, Barcelona 08035, Spain.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Jun;86:168-175. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.04.023. Epub 2017 May 6.
The objective of the study was to develop and validate an adequate tool to evaluate the risk of bias of randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and systematic reviews assessing drug adverse events.
We developed a structured risk of bias checklist applicable to randomized trials, cohort, case-control and nested case-control studies, and systematic reviews focusing on drug safety. Face and content validity was judged by three experienced reviewers. Interrater and intrarater reliability were determined using 20 randomly selected studies, assessed by three other independent reviewers including one performing a 3-week retest.
The developed checklist examines eight domains: study design and objectives, selection bias, attrition, adverse events information bias, other information bias, statistical methods to control confounding, other statistical methods, and conflicts of interest. The total number of questions varied from 10 to 32 depending on the study design. Interrater and intrarater agreements were fair with Kendall's W of 0.70 and 0.74, respectively. Median time to complete the checklist was 8.5 minutes.
The developed checklist showed face and content validity and acceptable reliability to assess the risk of bias for studies analyzing drug adverse events. Hence, it might be considered as a novel useful tool for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focusing on drug safety.
本研究的目的是开发并验证一种适当的工具,以评估随机对照试验、观察性研究以及评估药物不良事件的系统评价中的偏倚风险。
我们开发了一种结构化的偏倚风险清单,适用于随机试验、队列研究、病例对照研究和巢式病例对照研究,以及关注药物安全性的系统评价。由三位经验丰富的评审员判断表面效度和内容效度。使用20项随机选择的研究确定评分者间信度和评分者内信度,由另外三位独立评审员进行评估,其中一位进行为期3周的重新测试。
所开发的清单考察八个领域:研究设计与目标、选择偏倚、失访、不良事件信息偏倚、其他信息偏倚、控制混杂的统计方法、其他统计方法以及利益冲突。问题总数根据研究设计从10个到32个不等。评分者间和评分者内的一致性尚可,肯德尔W系数分别为0.70和0.74。完成清单的中位时间为8.5分钟。
所开发的清单在评估分析药物不良事件的研究的偏倚风险方面显示出表面效度和内容效度以及可接受的信度。因此,它可被视为一种用于关注药物安全性的系统评价和荟萃分析的新型有用工具。