Validity of Qualis database as a predictor of evidence hierarchy and risk of bias in randomized controlled trials: a case study in dentistry
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2011 |
Outros Autores: | , , |
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 |