Assessing the quality of randomized trials: reliability of the Jadad scale.

An instrument was developed and validated by Jadad, et al. to assess the quality of clinical trials using studies from the pain literature. Our study determined the reliability of the Jadad scale and the effect of blinding on interrater agreement in another group of primary studies. Four raters independently assessed blinded and unblinded versions of 76 randomized trials. Interrater agreement was calculated among combinations of four raters for blinded and unblinded versions of the studies. A 4 x 2 x 2 repeated measures design was employed to evaluate the effect of blinding. The interrater agreement for the Jadad scale was poor (kappa 0.37 to 0.39), but agreement improved substantially (kappa 0.53 to 0.59) with removal of the third item (an explanation of withdrawals). Blinding did not significantly affect the Jadad scale scores. A more precise description of how to score the withdrawal item and careful conduct of a practice set of articles might improve interrater agreement. In contrast with the conclusions reached by Jadad, we were unable to demonstrate a significant effect of blinding on the quality scores.

[1]  T. Chalmers,et al.  Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. , 1987, The New England journal of medicine.

[2]  I Olkin,et al.  Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. A concern for standards;. , 1995, JAMA.

[3]  L. Bouter,et al.  The relationship between methodological quality and conclusions in reviews of spinal manipulation. , 1995, JAMA.

[4]  Laupacis,et al.  Erythropoietin to minimize perioperative blood transfusion: a systematic review of randomized trials , 1998, Transfusion medicine.

[5]  A R Jadad,et al.  Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? , 1996, Controlled clinical trials.

[6]  A. Laupacis,et al.  Drugs to Minimize Perioperative Blood Loss in Cardiac Surgery: Meta-Analyses Using Perioperative Blood Transfusion As the Outcome , 1997, Anesthesia and analgesia.

[7]  A R Jadad,et al.  Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. , 1995, Controlled clinical trials.

[8]  C D Naylor,et al.  Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis. , 1992, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[9]  C. Naylor Two cheers for meta-analysis: problems and opportunities in aggregating results of clinical trials. , 1988, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[10]  J. Fleiss Statistical methods for rates and proportions , 1974 .

[11]  A R Jadad,et al.  Assessing the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials: Current Issues and Future Directions , 1996, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[12]  A. Jadad,et al.  The importance of quality of primary studies in producing unbiased systematic reviews. , 1996, Archives of internal medicine.

[13]  D. Felson,et al.  Bias in meta-analytic research. , 1992, Journal of clinical epidemiology.