review the reliability and validity of PEDro scale

PEDro scale信、效度

回顧三個信、效度驗證研究，PEDro scale在總分層級具有可接受的評分者間信度，以及良好的建構以及收歛效度。但在個別題目層級，評分者間信度的結果在不同研究之間不太一致。有的研究發現大部份的題目具有良好的評分者間信度，但有的研究則發現評分者間信度大多不佳。

文獻

Reliability of the PEDro Scale for Rating Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials

• 本研究兩個studies的評分者都是自願參加的物理治療師

study 1

• 11 raters on 25 RCT randomly selected from English language RCTs in the PEDro database.
  • those raters knew they were in a experiment for reliability.
• item level: kappa = 0.12 ~ 0.73
  • 
• total score level: ICC(1,1) = .55 (95% CI =
  .41, .72)

study 2

• 120篇RTC都會經過兩輪的評分。第一輪的評分中，每一篇會先由2位評分者獨自評分（individual rating）。若有不一致之處，再由第3位評分者（consensus rater）進行評分，以形成最終的共識評分（consensus rating）。並非所有的120篇都由相同的2位評分者進行評分，而是由25位評分者評分，每一個人分到1 ~ 56篇（平均一人分到13.8篇）。第二輪則由另外一組評分者（7位）進行獨自評分，若有不一致之處再由第3位評分者進行評分。

• individual rating reliability: 由二輪評分中的4組獨自評分結果計算kappa

• consensus rating reliability: 由二輪評分的consensus rating結果計算kappa

  • Consensus raters were 4 of the authors (CGM, CS, RDH, and AMM) and 2 research assistants who developed the PEDro scale and maintain the PEDro database.

• on 120 RCT randomly selected from English language RCTs in the PEDro database.

• item level

  • 

• total score level:

  • individual rating: ICC(1,1) = .56 (95% CI
    .47, .65)
  • consensus rating: ICC(1,1) = .68 (95% CI
    .57, .76)

The PEDro scale had acceptably high convergent validity, construct validity, and interrater reliability in evaluating methodological quality of pharmaceutical trials

• conclusion: The PEDro scale was valid and reliable for assessing methodological quality in pharmaceutical trials.
• 本研究根據先前回顧研究所蒐集到的53篇有關疼痛治療的藥物研究進行PEDro scale 的信效度分析。
• 評分者：2位獨立評分員
• inter-rater reliability
  • total score: ICC = 0.80 (95% CI 0.68e0.88)
  • item:
    • 
• convergent validity: moderate convergence
  • Spearman's correlation with Cochrane risk of bias tool, r = 0.61 (95% CI 0.46e0.72)
• construct validity
  • 

Reliability of the PEDro scale: comparison between trials published in predatory and non-predatory journals

• conclusion: Interrater reliability of PEDro score of RCTs published in predatory journals (unacceptable level) is lower than that of trials published in non-predatory journals (acceptable level), likely also due to ambiguous language and incomplete reporting.
• sample: 298 RCTs
  • 這也是一個次級資料分析。RCT是來自先前的回顧性研究，比較掠奪性期刊文章和非掠奪性期刊文章的方法學品質。
• PEDro rater: 2 independent raters
• inter-rater reliability
  • (不分期刊類型)
  • （區分期刊類型）