2019
DOI: 10.1186/s41512-019-0050-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Elaborating on the assessment of the risk of bias in prognostic studies in pain rehabilitation using QUIPS—aspects of interrater agreement

Abstract: Background Many studies have been performed to identify important prognostic factors for outcomes after rehabilitation of patients with chronic pain, and there is a need to synthesize them through systematic review. In this process, it is important to assess the study quality and risk of bias. The “Quality In Prognosis Studies” (QUIPS) tool has been developed for this purpose and consists of several prompting items categorized into six domains, and each domain is judged on a three-grade scale (low… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
119
0
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 129 publications
(138 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
119
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The location and severity of third molar impaction could also be a contributing factor, considering the proximity of the third molar to the TMJ. The use of an incorrect surgical technique or failure to support the mandible while extraction of lower third molars is performed was identified as possible factors responsible for TMDs [15,16,18,19,21,22,28].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The location and severity of third molar impaction could also be a contributing factor, considering the proximity of the third molar to the TMJ. The use of an incorrect surgical technique or failure to support the mandible while extraction of lower third molars is performed was identified as possible factors responsible for TMDs [15,16,18,19,21,22,28].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This tool consists of several prompting items categorized into six domains, and each domain is judged on a three-grade scale (low, moderate, or high risk of bias). It is based on recommendations from a comprehensive review of critical appraisal in prognosis reviews and is informed by epidemiologic principles [14,15].…”
Section: Risk Of Bias (Rob)mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…All articles will be assessed independently by two reviewers within the six domains including study participation, study attrition, prognostic factor measurement, outcome measurement, study confounding, and statistical analysis and reporting. Each reviewer will insert relevant information from each paper in a table that would be rated as high, moderate, or low risk of bias [35]. Discrepant scores will be resolved by discussion or consulting a third member of the group.…”
Section: Quality and Risk Of Bias Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, we conducted the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) analysis to evaluate the risk of bias in studies that evaluated the prognostic role of vitamin D (21). The overall risk of bias was considered low if all domains were at low risk or with only one at a moderate level; high if at least one domain was at high risk or >3 classified as moderate; unknown if no judgment could be made; and moderate otherwise (22). Each domain described for each tool was classified according to the risk of bias by one researcher (DL) and revised by a second researcher (JG).…”
Section: Quality Assessment (Risk Of Bias)mentioning
confidence: 99%