RoB2 (revised version 2019), an authoritative tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials, has been updated and improved based on the original version. This article elaborated and interpreted the background and main content of RoB2 (revised version 2019), as well as the operation process of the new software. Compared with the previous version of RoB2 (revised version 2018), RoB2 (revised version 2019) has the advantages of rich content, complete details, accurate questions, and simple operation, etc. Additionally, it is more user-friendly for researchers and beginners. The risk bias assessment of randomized controlled trials is more comprehensive and accurate, and it is an authoritative, trustworthy, and popular tool for evaluating the risk of bias in randomized controlled studies in medical practice.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the reliability and validity of the instrument of clinical applicability of guidelines (version 2.0). MethodsThe experts of domestic medical institutions were investigated by questionnaire, and the instrument of clinical applicability of guidelines (version 2.0) were evaluated the guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of tinea mantis and tinea pedis (revised edition 2017) and the guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of cerebral hemorrhage in China (2019). Using Cronbach's α coefficient and Spearman-Brown coefficient to evaluate the inherent reliability and split-half reliability. The content validity was evaluated by calculating the content validity index of the item level and the adjusted Kappa value. The correlation coefficient between each item and the dimension and the hypothesis test were used to evaluate the convergent and discriminant validity. The structural validity was evaluated by using structural equation model to evaluate the structural validity of the tool. ResultsThe Cronbach's α coefficient and Spearman-Brown coefficient of the instrument of clinical applicability of guidelines (version 2.0) were both greater than 0.7, the content validity index (S-CVI/Ave) were more than 0.8, the success rates of convergent were 100%, and the success rates of discriminant validity calibration were 100% and 96%. In the second-order confirmatory factor analysis model, the χ2/ df were less than 3, the fitting index (CFI), the goodness of fit index (GFI) and the adjustment goodness of fit index (AGFI) were all greater than 0.9. The root mean square residual (RMR) were all less than 0.05, and approximate error root mean square (RMSEA) were less than 0.09. The P value of RESEA hypothesis test were more than 0.05. ConclusionThe instrument of clinical applicability of guidelines (version 2.0) has good reliability and validity, which can be further verified in practical application in the future.
ObjectivesTo compare and analyze existing pharmaceutical economic evaluations quality assessment instruments, and to provide suggestions on how to choose the most appropriate instrument.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect studies on existing pharmaceutical economic evaluations quality assessment instruments from inception to December, 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and analyzed studies in terms of items, design methods, scopes and characteristics.ResultsTwelve original checklists with good reliability and validity were found. The first quality assessment method was designed in 1987 and the latest one was published in 2013. The number of checklist items ranged from 11 to 61.ConclusionThere is no consolidated method for assessing the quality of pharmaceutical economics evaluations. Evaluators can choose appropriate evaluation tools according to the purpose, type and operability of evaluation.
The background and status of the quality assessment instruments of clinical trials, and several frequently used instruments both domesticly and abroad were introduced, and the problems in this field were discussed.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the reliability and validity of Guideline Implementation Success Assessment Tool (A-GIST). MethodsWith the guideline for the prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in China (2020 edition) as the target guideline, health care providers and patients from different hospitals across the country were investigated by questionnaire using A-GIST. Spearman-Brown coefficient and Cronbach's α coefficient were used to evaluate the split-half reliability and internal consistency reliability, while the structural validity, convergent validity and discriminant validity were investigated by confirmatory factor analysis based on structural equation. ResultsThe internal consistency reliability and split half reliability coefficients of the whole tool and each dimension ranged from 0.650 to 0.986. The scale-level content validity index (S-CVI/Ave) of content validity was 0.846. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that, the χ2/df of two sections of the tool were 8.695 and 6.123, respectively. The root mean square residual (RMR), the standard root mean square residual (SRMR) and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) were under or almost under the threshold. Besides, the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) of them were 0.901 and 0.822, the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) were 0.836 and 0.787, and the parsimonious normed fit index (PNFI) were 0.545 and 0.788, respectively. ConclusionGuideline Implementation Success Assessment Tool (A-GIST) was proved to be valid and reliable, and it shows that it is necessary to optimize the items under the dimensions of maintenance and evaluation of diagnosis and treatment effect in the future.
The instrument for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines (version 2.0) is designed to evaluate the clinical applicability of guidelines quantitatively. It is helpful to select guidelines with high clinical applicability and provide suggestions for revision. The evaluators are consistent with the target users of guidelines. The instrument consists of basic information, evaluation items and scoring scheme. The evaluation items are related to accessibility, readability, acceptability, feasibility and overall evaluation. Therefore, this article provides a detailed interpretation of the instrument and references for future users.
The risk of bias assessment tool 2.0 (RoB 2.0) for analyzing cluster randomized trials and crossover trials (revised version 2021) has been updated. The current paper briefly delineates the history of the RoB 2.0 tool and includes an explanation and interpretation of the updated contents and software operation process for use with cluster randomized trials and crossover trials. Compared with the previous versions, the updated RoB 2.0 tool (revised version 2021) has the advantage of precise language and is easily understood. Thus, the updated RoB 2.0 tool merits popularization and further general application.
Objective To update and form an instrument for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines (version 1.0). Methods We updated the systematic review of global guideline clinical applicability evaluation instruments to form the initial item list and carried out Delphi expert consultation to establish the instrument for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines (version 2.0). Results The general structure of version 2.0 was consistent with that of version 1.0, which included 12 evaluation items belonging to five domains covering accessibility, readability, acceptability, feasibility, and an overall evaluation. Moreover, some new items were added in version 2.0, such as "The guideline does not provide supporting tools or resources and the operation is poor", "After the guideline implementation, the expected effects of diagnosis and treatment do not be achieved", " Medical staff in your workplace believe that the guideline is not necessary because they have sufficient medical experience, etc.", "Lack of authority of the organizations and personnel that developed the guideline" and "Medical staff in your workplace are reluctant to change the original medical practice". Conclusion This study updated and formed an instrument for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines (version 2.0), which is able to better assess the applicability of new clinical guidelines and greatly promote more appropriate guidelines into practice.
The current issue of air pollution has pushed the development of the corresponding observational air pollution studies. The World Health Organization has developed a new risk of bias (RoB) assessment instrument and a related guideline for assessing the risk of potential bias in observational air pollution studies. This study introduced the background, methods, uses, advantages and disadvantages, precautions, and usage scenarios of the RoB instrument. It is expected to provide researchers with corresponding quality evaluation tools when writing related systematic review and meta-analysis, which will also help provide reporting standards for observational air pollution studies, thereby improving the quality of studies.