Interrater- und Paralleltest-Reliabilität der deutschen Version der PEDro-Skala

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund: Die Skala der Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro-Skala) wurde in englischer Sprache für Nutzer entwickelt, um das Verzerrungsrisiko in den Berichten klinischer Studien einzuschätzen. Eine interkulturelle Adaption an den deutschen Sprachraum ist bereits erfolgt, die Reliabilität dieser deutschen Version der PEDro-Skala wurde jedoch bisher nicht untersucht.

Ziel: Das Ziel der Studie war, die Interrater-Reliabilität und Paralleltest-Reliabilität der deutschen Version der PEDro-Skala zu überprüfen.

Methode: Muttersprachlich deutsche Physiotherapeuten beurteilten 50 Artikel über randomisierte kontrollierte Studien mit der deutschen Version der PEDro-Skala. 2 Gutachterteams beurteilten jeden Artikel, um 2 Sets von Konsensbeurteilungen zu erzeugen. Alle verwendeten Artikel waren zudem bereits früher außerhalb des Rahmens dieser Studie von Gutachtern der PEDro mithilfe der englischsprachigen Originalversion beurteilt worden. Die Interrater-Reliabilität (sowohl bezüglich der einzelnen Items als auch des PEDro-Summenscores) wurde durch den Vergleich der beiden deutschsprachigen Beurteilungssätze und die Paralleltest-Reliabilität durch den Vergleich der deutschen mit den englischen Beurteilungen ermittelt.

Ergebnisse: Die Spannweite der Interrater-Reliabilität reichte von schwach bis exzellent (Kappa: 0,21 – 1,00 für die einzelnen Items; Intraklassen-Korrelationskoeffizient: 0,76; 95 %-Konfidenzintervall [KI]: 0,61 – 0,85 für den Summenscore). Der Standardfehler der Messungen betrug 0,77 Punkte. Der Intraklassen-Korrelationskoeffizient für die Paralleltest-Reliabilität (Vergleich zwischen deutscher und englischer Version) betrug 0,61 (95 %-KI: 0,40 – 0,76).

Schlussfolgerung: Die Interrater-Reliabilität der deutschen PEDro-Skala ist ausreichend und ähnlich der englischen Originalversion. Aufgrund der belegten Paralleltest-Reliabilität kann von einer Austauschbarkeit der englischen und deutschen Version ausgegangen werden.

Abstract

Background: The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale was developed for users to appraise the risk of bias of reports of clinical trials. The scale has undergone cross-cultural adaptation into German, but the reliability of the German version of the PEDro scale has not been evaluated.

Objective: The study’s aim was to evaluate the interrater and parallel forms reliability of the German version of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale.

Method: Native German speaking physiotherapists rated 50 reports of randomised controlled trials with the German version of the PEDro scale. Two teams of raters assessed each report in order to generate two sets of consensus ratings. Each report also had existing ratings generated using the English PEDro scale. Interrater reliability (individual items and total PEDro score) was determined by comparing the two sets of German ratings and parallel forms reliability by comparing the German with the English ratings.

Results: Interrater reliability of the German PEDro scale ranged from poor to excellent (kappa: 0.21 – 1.00 for individual items; intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.76; 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.61 – 0.85 for total PEDro score). Standard error of the measurement was 0.77 points. Intraclass correlation coefficient for parallel forms reliability (German compared to English versions) was 0.61 (95 %-CI: 0.40 – 0.76).

Conclusion: The interrater reliability of the German PEDro scale is adequate and similar to the original English version. The evidence for parallel forms reliability suggests the interchangeability of the English and German versions.

Schlüsselwörter

evidenzbasierte Physiotherapie/Medizin (EBM) - Methodologie - randomisierte kontrollierte Studien (RCT)

Key words

evidence-based physiotherapy/medicine (EBM) - methodology - randomised controlled trials (RCT)

• Literatur

• 1 Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F et al. Recommendations for the cross-cultural adaptation of health status measures. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and the Institute for Work & Health; 2002 www.dash.iwh.on.ca/system/files/X-CulturalAdaptation-2007.pdf (11.09.2008)
• 2 Behrens J, Langer G. Evidence-based nursing. Bern: Huber; 2004
• 3 De Morton NA. The PEDro scale is a valid measure of the methodological quality of clinical trials: a demographic study. Aust J Physiother 2009; 55: 129-133
• 4 De Vet HC, Terwee CB, Knol DL et al. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59: 1033-1039
• 5 Fleiss JL. The design and analysis of clinical experiments. New York: Wiley & Sons; 1986
• 6 Gravel J, Opatrny L, Shapiro S. The intention-to-treat approach in randomized controlled trials: are authors saying what they do and doing what they say?. Clin Trials 2007; 4: 350-356
• 7 Herbert R, Jamtvedt G, Hagen KB et al. Practical evidence-based physiotherapy. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2011
• 8 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159-174
• 9 Macedo LG, Elkins MR, Maher CG et al. There was evidence of convergent and construct validity of Physiotherapy Evidence Database quality scale for physiotherapy trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 920-925
• 10 Maher CG, Sherrington C, Herbert RD et al. Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys Ther 2003; 83: 713-721
• 11 Michaleff ZA, Costa LO, Moseley AM et al. CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed, and EMBASE are the most comprehensive databases indexing randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions. Phys Ther 2011; 91: 190-197
• 12 Moher D, Jadad AR, Tugwell P. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials. Current issues and future directions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996; 12: 195-208
• 13 Moseley AM, Sherrington C, Elkins MR et al. Indexing of randomised controlled trials of physiotherapy interventions: a comparison of AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, hooked on evidence, PEDro, PsycINFO and PubMed. Physiotherapy 2009; 95: 151-156
• 14 Olivo SA, Macedo LG, Gadotti IC et al. Scales to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials: a systematic review. Phys Ther 2008; 88: 156-175
• 15 Ostelo RW, de Vet HC, Knol DL et al. 24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire was preferred out of six functional status questionnaires for post-lumbar disc surgery. J Clin Epidemiol 2004; 57: 268-276
• 16 Physiotherapy Evidence Database. PEDro-Skala; 2010 www.pedro.org.au/german/downloads/pedro-scale (12.09.2012)
• 17 Sackett DL, Strauss SE, Richardson WS et al. Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2000
• 18 Sherrington C, Herbert RD, Maher CG et al. PEDro. A database of randomized trials and systematic reviews in physiotherapy. Man Ther 2000; 5: 223-226
• 19 Shiwa SR, da Cunha Menezes Costa L, Moseley A et al. Reproducibility of the Portuguese version of the PEDro scale. Cad Saude Publica 2011; 27: 2063-2068
• 20 Shiwa SR, Moseley AM, Maher CG et al. Language of publication has a small influence on the quality of reports of controlled trials of physiotherapy interventions. J Clin Epidemiol 2013; 66: 78-84
• 21 Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60: 34-42
• 22 Van Tulder MW, Assendelft WJ, Koes BW et al. Method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group for Spinal Disorders. Spine 1997; 22: 2323-2330