成人创伤后应激障碍心理治疗随机临床试验的偏倚风险

Q1 Psychology
Chronic Stress Pub Date : 2018-05-31 eCollection Date: 2018-01-01 DOI:10.1177/2470547018779066
Juliana Martins Scalabrin, Marcelo F Mello, Walter Swardfager, Hugo Cogo-Moreira
{"title":"成人创伤后应激障碍心理治疗随机临床试验的偏倚风险","authors":"Juliana Martins Scalabrin,&nbsp;Marcelo F Mello,&nbsp;Walter Swardfager,&nbsp;Hugo Cogo-Moreira","doi":"10.1177/2470547018779066","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the factorial validity and internal consistency of a measurement model underlying risk of bias as endorsed by Cochrane for use in systematic reviews; more specifically, how the risk of bias tool behaves in the context of studies on psychological therapies used for treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder in adults.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We applied confirmatory factor analysis to a systematic review containing 70 clinical trials entitled \"Psychological Therapies for Chronic Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in Adults\" under a Bayesian estimator. Seven observed categorical risk of bias items (answered categorically as low, unclear, or high risk of bias) were collected from the systematic review.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A unidimensional model for the Cochrane risk of bias tool items returned poor fit indices and low factor loadings, indicating questionable validity and internal consistency.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although the present evidence is restricted to psychological interventions for post-traumatic stress disorder, it demonstrates that the way risk of bias has been measured in this context may not be adequate. More broadly, the results suggest the importance of testing the risk of bias tool, and the possibility of rethinking the methods used to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.</p>","PeriodicalId":52315,"journal":{"name":"Chronic Stress","volume":" ","pages":"2470547018779066"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2470547018779066","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Risk of Bias in Randomized Clinical Trials on Psychological Therapies for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in Adults.\",\"authors\":\"Juliana Martins Scalabrin,&nbsp;Marcelo F Mello,&nbsp;Walter Swardfager,&nbsp;Hugo Cogo-Moreira\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/2470547018779066\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the factorial validity and internal consistency of a measurement model underlying risk of bias as endorsed by Cochrane for use in systematic reviews; more specifically, how the risk of bias tool behaves in the context of studies on psychological therapies used for treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder in adults.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We applied confirmatory factor analysis to a systematic review containing 70 clinical trials entitled \\\"Psychological Therapies for Chronic Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in Adults\\\" under a Bayesian estimator. Seven observed categorical risk of bias items (answered categorically as low, unclear, or high risk of bias) were collected from the systematic review.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A unidimensional model for the Cochrane risk of bias tool items returned poor fit indices and low factor loadings, indicating questionable validity and internal consistency.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although the present evidence is restricted to psychological interventions for post-traumatic stress disorder, it demonstrates that the way risk of bias has been measured in this context may not be adequate. More broadly, the results suggest the importance of testing the risk of bias tool, and the possibility of rethinking the methods used to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":52315,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chronic Stress\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2470547018779066\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2470547018779066\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chronic Stress\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/2470547018779066\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2018/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Psychology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chronic Stress","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2470547018779066","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

目的:评价Cochrane认可的用于系统评价的潜在偏倚风险测量模型的析因效度和内部一致性;更具体地说,偏见风险工具在用于治疗成人创伤后应激障碍的心理疗法研究中是如何发挥作用的。方法:我们在贝叶斯估计下应用验证性因子分析对包含70个临床试验的系统评价,题为“成人慢性创伤后应激障碍的心理治疗”。从系统评价中收集了七个观察到的分类风险偏倚项目(分类回答为低、不清楚或高风险偏倚)。结果:Cochrane偏倚风险工具项目的一维模型返回的拟合指数较差,因子负荷较低,表明有效性和内部一致性存在问题。结论:尽管目前的证据仅限于创伤后应激障碍的心理干预,但它表明,在这种情况下测量偏见风险的方式可能并不充分。更广泛地说,结果表明测试偏倚风险工具的重要性,以及重新思考用于评估系统评价和荟萃分析偏倚风险的方法的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Risk of Bias in Randomized Clinical Trials on Psychological Therapies for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in Adults.

Risk of Bias in Randomized Clinical Trials on Psychological Therapies for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in Adults.

Risk of Bias in Randomized Clinical Trials on Psychological Therapies for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in Adults.

Risk of Bias in Randomized Clinical Trials on Psychological Therapies for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in Adults.

Objective: To evaluate the factorial validity and internal consistency of a measurement model underlying risk of bias as endorsed by Cochrane for use in systematic reviews; more specifically, how the risk of bias tool behaves in the context of studies on psychological therapies used for treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder in adults.

Methods: We applied confirmatory factor analysis to a systematic review containing 70 clinical trials entitled "Psychological Therapies for Chronic Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in Adults" under a Bayesian estimator. Seven observed categorical risk of bias items (answered categorically as low, unclear, or high risk of bias) were collected from the systematic review.

Results: A unidimensional model for the Cochrane risk of bias tool items returned poor fit indices and low factor loadings, indicating questionable validity and internal consistency.

Conclusion: Although the present evidence is restricted to psychological interventions for post-traumatic stress disorder, it demonstrates that the way risk of bias has been measured in this context may not be adequate. More broadly, the results suggest the importance of testing the risk of bias tool, and the possibility of rethinking the methods used to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Chronic Stress
Chronic Stress Psychology-Clinical Psychology
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信