Validity of Qualis database as a predictor of evidence hierarchy and risk of bias in randomized controlled trials: a case study in dentistry

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Ferreira, Christiane Alves [UNIFESP]
Data de Publicação: 2011
Outros Autores: Loureiro, Carlos Alfredo Salles [UNIFESP], Saconato, Humberto [UNIFESP], Atallah, Álvaro Nagib [UNIFESP]
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP
Texto Completo: http://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/6165
http://dx.doi.org/:10.1590/S1807-59322011000200025
Resumo: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity of the Qualis database in identifying the levels of scientific evidence and the quality of randomized controlled trials indexed in the Lilacs database. METHODS: We selected 40 open-access journals and performed a page-by-page hand search, to identify published articles according to the type of study during a period of six years. Classification of studies was performed by independent reviewers assessed for their reliability. Randomized controlled trials were identified for separate evaluation of risk of bias using four dimensions: generation of allocation sequence, allocation concealment, blinding, and incomplete outcome data. The Qualis classification was considered to be the outcome variable. The statistical tests used included Kappa, Spearman's correlation, Kendall-tau and ordinal regressions. RESULTS: Studies with low levels of scientific evidence received similar Qualis classifications when compared to studies with high levels of evidence. In addition, randomized controlled trials with a high risk of bias for the generation of allocation sequences and allocation concealment were more likely to be published in journals with higher Qualis levels. DISCUSSION: The hierarchy level of the scientific evidence as classified by type of research design, as well as by the validity of studies according to the bias control level, was not correlated or associated with Qualis stratification. CONCLUSION: Qualis classifications for journals are not an approximate or indirect predictor of the validity of randomized controlled trials published in these journals and are therefore not a legitimate or appropriate indicator of the validity of randomized controlled trials.
id UFSP_be52e2ae434404c5b2ddff0057e2dea7
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.unifesp.br:11600/6165
network_acronym_str UFSP
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP
repository_id_str 3465
spelling Ferreira, Christiane Alves [UNIFESP]Loureiro, Carlos Alfredo Salles [UNIFESP]Saconato, Humberto [UNIFESP]Atallah, Álvaro Nagib [UNIFESP]Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)2015-06-14T13:42:46Z2015-06-14T13:42:46Z2011-01-01Clinics. Faculdade de Medicina / USP, v. 66, n. 2, p. 337-342, 2011.1807-5932http://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/6165http://dx.doi.org/:10.1590/S1807-59322011000200025S1807-59322011000200025.pdfS1807-59322011000200025:10.1590/S1807-59322011000200025WOS:000289365200025OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity of the Qualis database in identifying the levels of scientific evidence and the quality of randomized controlled trials indexed in the Lilacs database. METHODS: We selected 40 open-access journals and performed a page-by-page hand search, to identify published articles according to the type of study during a period of six years. Classification of studies was performed by independent reviewers assessed for their reliability. Randomized controlled trials were identified for separate evaluation of risk of bias using four dimensions: generation of allocation sequence, allocation concealment, blinding, and incomplete outcome data. The Qualis classification was considered to be the outcome variable. The statistical tests used included Kappa, Spearman's correlation, Kendall-tau and ordinal regressions. RESULTS: Studies with low levels of scientific evidence received similar Qualis classifications when compared to studies with high levels of evidence. In addition, randomized controlled trials with a high risk of bias for the generation of allocation sequences and allocation concealment were more likely to be published in journals with higher Qualis levels. DISCUSSION: The hierarchy level of the scientific evidence as classified by type of research design, as well as by the validity of studies according to the bias control level, was not correlated or associated with Qualis stratification. CONCLUSION: Qualis classifications for journals are not an approximate or indirect predictor of the validity of randomized controlled trials published in these journals and are therefore not a legitimate or appropriate indicator of the validity of randomized controlled trials.Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)UNIFESP, EPMSciELO337-342engFaculdade de Medicina / USPClinicsDatabasesBibliographicRandomized controlled trialBiasValidityEmpirical assessmentValidity of Qualis database as a predictor of evidence hierarchy and risk of bias in randomized controlled trials: a case study in dentistryinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNIFESPinstname:Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)instacron:UNIFESPORIGINALS1807-59322011000200025.pdfapplication/pdf113615${dspace.ui.url}/bitstream/11600/6165/1/S1807-59322011000200025.pdf14ab7e3f02ff2733c6ba6210203d9727MD51open accessTEXTS1807-59322011000200025.pdf.txtS1807-59322011000200025.pdf.txtExtracted texttext/plain31279${dspace.ui.url}/bitstream/11600/6165/2/S1807-59322011000200025.pdf.txt79fa5e2ad9f1596a47aee8badb3991f3MD52open access11600/61652022-07-08 10:22:07.33open accessoai:repositorio.unifesp.br:11600/6165Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://www.repositorio.unifesp.br/oai/requestopendoar:34652022-07-08T13:22:07Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP - Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)false
dc.title.en.fl_str_mv Validity of Qualis database as a predictor of evidence hierarchy and risk of bias in randomized controlled trials: a case study in dentistry
title Validity of Qualis database as a predictor of evidence hierarchy and risk of bias in randomized controlled trials: a case study in dentistry
spellingShingle Validity of Qualis database as a predictor of evidence hierarchy and risk of bias in randomized controlled trials: a case study in dentistry
Ferreira, Christiane Alves [UNIFESP]
Databases
Bibliographic
Randomized controlled trial
Bias
Validity
Empirical assessment
title_short Validity of Qualis database as a predictor of evidence hierarchy and risk of bias in randomized controlled trials: a case study in dentistry
title_full Validity of Qualis database as a predictor of evidence hierarchy and risk of bias in randomized controlled trials: a case study in dentistry
title_fullStr Validity of Qualis database as a predictor of evidence hierarchy and risk of bias in randomized controlled trials: a case study in dentistry
title_full_unstemmed Validity of Qualis database as a predictor of evidence hierarchy and risk of bias in randomized controlled trials: a case study in dentistry
title_sort Validity of Qualis database as a predictor of evidence hierarchy and risk of bias in randomized controlled trials: a case study in dentistry
author Ferreira, Christiane Alves [UNIFESP]
author_facet Ferreira, Christiane Alves [UNIFESP]
Loureiro, Carlos Alfredo Salles [UNIFESP]
Saconato, Humberto [UNIFESP]
Atallah, Álvaro Nagib [UNIFESP]
author_role author
author2 Loureiro, Carlos Alfredo Salles [UNIFESP]
Saconato, Humberto [UNIFESP]
Atallah, Álvaro Nagib [UNIFESP]
author2_role author
author
author
dc.contributor.institution.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Ferreira, Christiane Alves [UNIFESP]
Loureiro, Carlos Alfredo Salles [UNIFESP]
Saconato, Humberto [UNIFESP]
Atallah, Álvaro Nagib [UNIFESP]
dc.subject.eng.fl_str_mv Databases
Bibliographic
Randomized controlled trial
Bias
Validity
Empirical assessment
topic Databases
Bibliographic
Randomized controlled trial
Bias
Validity
Empirical assessment
description OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity of the Qualis database in identifying the levels of scientific evidence and the quality of randomized controlled trials indexed in the Lilacs database. METHODS: We selected 40 open-access journals and performed a page-by-page hand search, to identify published articles according to the type of study during a period of six years. Classification of studies was performed by independent reviewers assessed for their reliability. Randomized controlled trials were identified for separate evaluation of risk of bias using four dimensions: generation of allocation sequence, allocation concealment, blinding, and incomplete outcome data. The Qualis classification was considered to be the outcome variable. The statistical tests used included Kappa, Spearman's correlation, Kendall-tau and ordinal regressions. RESULTS: Studies with low levels of scientific evidence received similar Qualis classifications when compared to studies with high levels of evidence. In addition, randomized controlled trials with a high risk of bias for the generation of allocation sequences and allocation concealment were more likely to be published in journals with higher Qualis levels. DISCUSSION: The hierarchy level of the scientific evidence as classified by type of research design, as well as by the validity of studies according to the bias control level, was not correlated or associated with Qualis stratification. CONCLUSION: Qualis classifications for journals are not an approximate or indirect predictor of the validity of randomized controlled trials published in these journals and are therefore not a legitimate or appropriate indicator of the validity of randomized controlled trials.
publishDate 2011
dc.date.issued.fl_str_mv 2011-01-01
dc.date.accessioned.fl_str_mv 2015-06-14T13:42:46Z
dc.date.available.fl_str_mv 2015-06-14T13:42:46Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.citation.fl_str_mv Clinics. Faculdade de Medicina / USP, v. 66, n. 2, p. 337-342, 2011.
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/6165
http://dx.doi.org/:10.1590/S1807-59322011000200025
dc.identifier.issn.none.fl_str_mv 1807-5932
dc.identifier.file.none.fl_str_mv S1807-59322011000200025.pdf
dc.identifier.scielo.none.fl_str_mv S1807-59322011000200025
dc.identifier.doi.none.fl_str_mv :10.1590/S1807-59322011000200025
dc.identifier.wos.none.fl_str_mv WOS:000289365200025
identifier_str_mv Clinics. Faculdade de Medicina / USP, v. 66, n. 2, p. 337-342, 2011.
1807-5932
S1807-59322011000200025.pdf
S1807-59322011000200025
:10.1590/S1807-59322011000200025
WOS:000289365200025
url http://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/6165
http://dx.doi.org/:10.1590/S1807-59322011000200025
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.ispartof.none.fl_str_mv Clinics
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv 337-342
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Faculdade de Medicina / USP
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Faculdade de Medicina / USP
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP
instname:Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
instacron:UNIFESP
instname_str Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
instacron_str UNIFESP
institution UNIFESP
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP
collection Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv ${dspace.ui.url}/bitstream/11600/6165/1/S1807-59322011000200025.pdf
${dspace.ui.url}/bitstream/11600/6165/2/S1807-59322011000200025.pdf.txt
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv 14ab7e3f02ff2733c6ba6210203d9727
79fa5e2ad9f1596a47aee8badb3991f3
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv MD5
MD5
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP - Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1802764143422341120