This means that a new search was initiated every 8 seconds, on average, during The graph below illustrates the number of new PEDro searches performed each month during Download uncompressed. The database was last updated on 1 November this includes records added or amended since 15 October The next update is planned for 6 December The total number of records on the database is 53, PEDro statistics.
PEDro users were from over countries. PEDro statistics download Download uncompressed. Want to support PEDro? Sign up to the PEDro Newsletter to receive the latest news. I modified will modify who I assessed will assess this patient I modified will modify how I treat will treat this patient I made a choice between different options I used will use this information to manage this patient I used will use this information to be more certain about the management of this patient I used will use this information to better understand a particular issue related to this patient I used will use this information in a discussion with this patient I used will use this information in a discussion with other health professionals about this patient I used will use this information to influence this patient or other health professionals in the way we treat this patient.
Yes No. This information will help me to better understand I did not know what to do, and this information will help me to do something I knew what to do, and this information convinced me to do it I will use this information to do something in a different manner I will use this information to discuss with health professionals I will use this information to discuss with relatives and friends. You may check more than 1 box. This information helped will help to:.
This information will help me to improve my or my relative health or well-being This information will help me to feel reassured This information will help me to prevent a problem or the worsening of a problem This information will help me to handle a problem I will be better prepared to discuss with a health professional I will be better prepared to discuss with relatives and friends I will be more confident to make health care decision with a health professional I will be more confident to make health care decision with a relative or friend.
I expect no benefits. Less than 1 month Between 1 and 3 months Between 4 months and 6 months Between 7 months and 1 year More than one year. Female Male I prefer not to answer.
The consequence of such a choice is that we potentially slightly underestimated the reliability of ratings in study 1. In addition, we determined the percentage of close agreement of ratings within 2 points on the total PEDro scale for all ratings and the standard error of the measurement for the consensus ratings only. Reliability estimates lie along a continuum. Although kappa and ICC values are continuous data, we believe that physical therapists collapse these continuous data into discrete categories when they recall the results of reliability studies.
Data to support this contention, however, are lacking. The categories provide a description of the level of reliability that some readers may find useful. They should not be used to make a judgment as to whether the level of reliability is acceptable or not.
Such a decision would require a consideration of how the data will be used. The reliability of ratings of individual scale items is shown in Tables 1 and 2. From the study with the largest sample ie, study 2 , kappa values for individual scale items ranged from. The reliability of consensus ratings ie, ratings made by a panel of 2 or 3 raters ranged from. For the remaining 6 items, the reliability was within the same benchmark for individual and consensus ratings.
The ICC for consensus ratings was slightly higher at. The standard error of the measurement for the consensus ratings was 0. Rating this item requires a decision as to whether groups of subjects in a RCT were similar on key prognostic indicators prior to the intervention. Our impression is that intention-to-treat analysis is better reported in more recent articles.
Our reliability for individual items is difficult to benchmark because only Clark et al 17 provided reliability estimates for each item using the Jadad scale, and the items in that scale are not sufficiently similar to items in the PEDro scale to allow meaningful comparison. For a number of the scale items, the base rate was either very high or very low. When interpreting the kappa values for these items, readers need to be aware of the behavior of kappa values.
Our opinion on this issue is closer to Shrout and colleagues' position, 32 and so we would defend the use of the kappa statistic in our study.
We believe that the important issue is not a low base rate but the scenario where a data set has an artificially low base rate that is not representative of the population.
In such a situation, both sides of the base rate problem debate would agree that the estimates of reliability provided by the kappa statistic are misleading. In both studies, we randomly selected a sample of trials from the population of trials on the PEDro database. Not surprisingly, the base rates in the 2 samples were very similar to the base rate for the population see Moseley et al Accordingly, we believe that the use of the kappa statistic was justified in our studies and did not produce misleading inferences about reliability of ratings for items on the PEDro scale.
An understanding of the error associated with the PEDro scale can be used to guide the conduct of a systematic review that uses a minimum PEDro score as an inclusion criterion.
We believe it is sensible to conduct a sensitivity analysis to see how the conclusions of a systematic review are affected by varying the PEDro cutoff. For example, in Maher's review of workplace interventions to prevent low back pain, 22 reducing the PEDro cutoff from the original strict PEDro cutoff of 6 to a less strict cutoff of 5 or even 4 did not change the conclusion that there was strong evidence that braces are ineffective in preventing low back pain.
Readers should have more confidence in the conclusion of a review that is unaffected by changing the quality cutoff. None of the scale items had perfect reliability for the consensus ratings consensus ratings are displayed on the PEDro database ; thus, users need to understand that the PEDro scores contain some error. Readers who use the total score to distinguish between low- and high-quality RCTs need to recall that the standard error of the measurement for total scores is 0.
The results of our studies indicate that the reliability of the total PEDro score, based on consensus judgments, is acceptable. The scale appears to have sufficient reliability for use in systematic reviews of physical therapy RCTs.
National Health and Medical Research Council. Google Scholar. The art of quality assessment of RCTs included in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study.
Health Technol Assess. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Herbert R , Gabriel M. Effects of stretching before and after exercising on muscle soreness and risk of injury: systematic review. The effectiveness of acupuncture in the management of acute and chronic low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Lumbar supports and education for the prevention of low back pain in industry: a randomized controlled trial.
Conservative treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Br J Urol. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. Impact of quality scales on levels of evidence inferred from a systematic review of exercise therapy and low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Exercise therapy for low back pain. The Cochrane Library.
Phys Ther. Quality in the reporting of randomized trials in surgery: is the Jadad scale reliable? Control Clin Trials. Assessing the quality of randomized trials: reliability of the Jadad scale. Interrater reliability of the modified Jadad quality scale for systematic reviews of Alzheimer's disease drug trials. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? PEDro: a database of randomised trials and systematic reviews in physiotherapy.
Man Ther. Does spinal manipulative therapy help people with chronic low back pain? Australian Journal of Physiotherapy. Maher CG. A systematic review of workplace interventions to prevent low back pain. The Delphi List: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus.
Kunz R , Oxman A. The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. The effect of irradiation with ultra-violet light on the frequency of attacks of upper respiratory disease common colds. Am J Hyg. Landis J , Koch G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.
Fleiss JL. The Design and Analysis of Clinical Experiments. Google Preview. Reliability of Chalmers' scale to assess quality in meta-analyses on pharmacological treatments for osteoporosis. Ann Epidemiol. Balneotherapy and quality assessment: interobserver reliability of the Maastricht criteria list for blinded quality assessment. Spitznagel E , Helzer J. A proposed solution to the base rate problem in the Kappa statistic. Arch Gen Psychiatry.
Quantification of agreement in psychiatric diagnosis revisited. Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide.
Sign In or Create an Account. Sign In.
0コメント