| Ref ID | 421 |
| First Author | V. Welch |
| Journal | BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2012 |
| URL | https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2288-12-187 |
| Keywords |
• Cochrane • Equity • Influence • General medical • External validity |
| Problem(s) |
• Overly stringent inclusion criteria affecting external validity • Failure to consider equity, different socioeconomic groups or disadvantaged populations |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Inter-rater agreement study |
| First Author Country | Canada |
| Aim | To assess inter-rater agreement on whether differences in effect measures were likely for disadvantaged populations relative to advantaged populations using a sample of ten systematic reviews (9 Cochrane and 1 non-Cochrane) and a panel of 35 members of the Cochrane Collaboration. Three questions derived for this study to allow users of systematic reviews to make judgments about clinical practice implications for disadvantaged patients. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | Systematic reviews were rated as having important differences in relative effects across sex and socioeconomic status for a range of individual and population-level interventions. However, there was very low inter-rater agreement for these assessments. There is an unmet need for discussion of plausibility of differential effects in systematic reviews. Low kappa agreement between raters suggests a need for a depth of content expertise and stakeholders on systematic review author teams in making such decisions. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 10 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 10 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |