TABLE 1
FROM:
Bench to bedside: the quest for quality in experimental stroke research
Ulrich Dirnagl
BACK TO ARTICLETable 1. Overview of available quality score data from systematic reviews
| Systematic review | Theoretical range of quality scores a | Quality score (median) | Quality score (range) | Number of studies reviewed (total=357) | Effect of quality score on effect size |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C Briscoe, E Sena, PAG Sandercock and MR Macleod, personal communication, 2005 | 0–10 | 4 | 0–8 | 115 | ‡ |
| ES Sena, PCR Wheble, PAG Sandercock and MR Macleod, personal communication, 2005 | 0–10 | 5 | 2–6 | 18 | NS |
| PCR Wheble, ES Sena, PAG Sandercock and MR Macleod, personal communication, 2005 | 0–10 | 4 | 2–6 | 5 | †,‡ |
| Willmot et al (2005a) | 0–8 | 3 | 1–6 | 73 | † |
| Macleod et al (2005b) | 0–10 | 4 | 0–6 | 14 | NS |
| Macleod et al (2004) | 0–10 | 3,5 | 0–7 | 14 | 'Studies scoring highly tended to give a more precise estimate of the global estimate of the effect size' |
| Macleod et al (2005c) | 0–10 | 4 | 0–7 | 29 | †,‡ |
| Horn et al (2001) | 0–8 | 2.85 | 1–5 | 19 | Not tested |
| Macleod et al (2005b) | 0–8 | 2 | 1–7 | 25 | Not tested |
| van der Worp et al (2005) | 0–10 | 3 | 1–7 | 45 | Not tested |
a Horn et al (2001), based on the Stroke Therapy Academic Industry Roundtable (2001) criteria, suggested a scale of 0–8, which in some articles has been modified to a scale of 0–10; it is therefore impossible to combine the data.
† Quality score accounts for a significant amount of group heterogeneity of effect size of treatment;
‡ Significant negative correlation between quality score and effect size of treatment (i.e., lower quality scores associated with an increased estimate of the effect size);
NS, not significant.