For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
29
views
4
references
 Top references
cited by
90
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      300
      similar
       All similar

      Call for Papers: Sex and Gender in Neurodegenerative Diseases

      Submit here before September 30, 2024

      About Neurodegenerative Diseases: 3.0 Impact Factor I 4.3 CiteScore I 0.695 Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Interrater Reliability of the Modified Jadad Quality Scale for Systematic Reviews of Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Trials

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Drug therapies for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) have been evaluated in clinical trials over the past 2 decades. Systematic reviews of AD drug trials can shed more light on the efficacy of pharmaceutical interventions. The modified Jadad scale can be used to assess the quality of trial reports that are candidates for inclusion in these systematic reviews. The interrater reliability of the modified Jadad scale was examined during such a review. Three blinded reviewers rated the quality of 42 AD drug trial reports: the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.90. The modified Jadad scale appears to be a useful tool for AD research because of the very good interrater reliability. Also, it is composed of items that are well suited to the specific disease characteristics of AD. Further research should focus on the validity of this instrument.

          Related collections

          Most cited references4

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The importance of quality of primary studies in producing unbiased systematic reviews.

          Khalid Khan, S Daya, A Jadad (1996)
          Traditional and largely qualitative reviews of evidence are now giving way to much more structured systematic overviews that use a quantitative method to calculate the overall effect of treatment. The latter approach is dependent on the quality of primary studies, which may introduce bias if they are of poor methodologic quality. To test the hypothesis that the inclusion of poor-quality trials in meta-analyses would bias the conclusions and produce incorrect estimates of treatment effect. An overview of randomized trials of antiestrogen therapy in subfertile men with oligospermia was performed to test the hypothesis. Data sources included online searching of MEDLINE and Science Citation Index databases between 1966 and 1994, scanning the bibliography of known primary studies and review articles, and contacting experts in the field. After independent, blind assessment, nine of 149 originally identified studies met the inclusion criteria and were selected. We assessed study quality independently. Outcome data from each study were pooled and statistically summarized. There was a marginal improvement in pregnancy rate with antiestrogen treatment (odds ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.9 to 2.6). Sensitivity analyses on the basis of methodologic quality demonstrated that poor-quality studies produced a positive effect with treatment, whereas no benefit was observed with high-quality studies. The results of a meta-analysis are influenced by the quality of the primary studies included. Methodologically, poor studies tend to exaggerate the overall estimate of treatment effect and may lead to incorrect inferences.
          Article 0 comments Cited 56 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            A placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized trial of an extract of Ginkgo biloba for dementia. North American EGb Study Group

            P L Le Bars (1997)
            Article 0 comments Cited 24 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Feverfew as a preventive treatment for migraine: a systematic review.

              Sarah Ernst, M Pittler, Larry Vogler (1998)
              Feverfew is a popular herbal remedy advocated for the prevention of migraine. The aim of this systematic review was to look at the evidence for or against the clinical effectiveness of feverfew in migraine prevention. Literature searches were performed using the following databases: Medline, Embase, Biosis, CISCOM, and the Cochrane Library (all from their inception to April 1998). Only randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials were included. All articles were read by two independent reviewers. Data were extracted in a predefined, standardized fashion. The methodological quality of all trials was evaluated using the Jadad score. Five trials met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. The majority favor feverfew over placebo. Yet important caveats exist. The clinical effectiveness of feverfew in the prevention of migraine has not been established beyond reasonable doubt.
              Article 0 comments Cited 14 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (publisher-id): DEM
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord
                Journal ID (doi): 10.1159/issn.1420-8008
                Title: Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders
                Publisher: S. Karger AG
                ISSN (Print): 1420-8008
                ISSN (Electronic): 1421-9824
                Publication date Subscription-year: 2001
                Publication date (Print): June 2001
                Publication date (Electronic): 09 March 2001
                Volume: 12
                Issue: 3
                Pages: 232-236
                Affiliations
                aCenter for Clinical Epidemiology and Community Studies, S.M.B.D. Jewish General Hospital, bJoint Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, and cFaculty of Pharmacy, University of Montreal, Canada
                Article
                Publisher ID: 51263 Other ID: Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2001;12:232–236
                DOI: 10.1159/000051263
                PubMed ID: 11244218
                SO-VID: c7bac32f-2f2e-43f5-b773-1f7f63e34aef
                Copyright © © 2001 S. Karger AG, Basel
                License:

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                History
                Page count
                Tables: 2, References: 33, Pages: 5
                Categories
                Subject: Original Research Article

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Geriatric medicine,Neurology,Cardiovascular Medicine,Neurosciences,Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry,Public health
                Keywords: Clinical trial,Alzheimer’s disease,Interrater reliability,Drug therapy,Systematic review,Quality scale,Jadad scale
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Geriatric medicine, Neurology, Cardiovascular Medicine, Neurosciences, Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry, Public health
                Keywords: Clinical trial, Alzheimer’s disease, Interrater reliability, Drug therapy, Systematic review, Quality scale, Jadad scale

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content300

                See all similar

                Cited by90

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors252

                See all reference authors