Jadad scale

Last updated

The Jadad scale, sometimes known as Jadad scoring or the Oxford quality scoring system, is a procedure to assess the methodological quality of a clinical trial by objective criteria. It is named after Canadian-Colombian physician Alex Jadad who in 1996 described a system for allocating such trials a score of between zero (very poor) and five (rigorous). It is the most widely used such assessment in the world, and as of May 2024, its seminal paper has been cited in over 24,500 scientific works.

Contents

Description

The Jadad scale independently assesses the methodological quality of a clinical trial judging the effectiveness of blinding. Alejandro "Alex" Jadad Bechara, a Colombian physician who worked as a Research Fellow at the Oxford Pain Relief Unit, Nuffield Department of Anaesthetics, at the University of Oxford described the allocating trials a score of between zero (very poor) and five (rigorous) in an appendix to a 1996 paper. [1] In a 2007 book Jadad described the randomised controlled trial as "one of the simplest, most powerful and revolutionary forms of research". [2]

Background

Clinical trials are conducted for the purpose of collecting data on the efficacy of medical treatments. [3] The treatment might be, for example, a new drug, a medical device, a surgical procedure, or a preventative regime. [3] Clinical trial protocols vary considerably depending on the nature of the treatment under investigation, [4] but typically in a controlled trial researchers gather a group of volunteers and subject some to the test treatment, while giving the others either no treatment (known as a placebo), or an established treatment for comparison. After a defined time period, the patients in the test group are assessed for health improvements in comparison with the control group.[ citation needed ]

However, trials can vary greatly in quality. Methodological errors such as poor blinding or poor randomisation allow factors such as the placebo effect or selection bias to adversely affect the results of a trial. [5]

Randomisation

Randomisation is a process to remove potential distortion of statistical results arising from the manner in which the trial is conducted, in particular in the selection of subjects. Studies have indicated, for example, that nonrandomised trials are more likely to show a positive result for a new treatment than for an established conventional one. [5]

Blinding

The importance of scientific controls to limit factors under test is well established. However, it is also important that none of those involved in a clinical trial, whether the researcher, the subject patient or any other involved parties, should allow their own prior expectations to affect reporting of results. [6] The placebo effect is known to be a confounding factor in trials; affecting the ability of both patients and doctors to report accurately on the clinical outcome. Experimental blinding is a process to prevent bias, both conscious and subconscious, skewing results. [6]

Blinding frequently takes the form of a placebo, an inactive dummy that is indistinguishable from the real treatment. Blinding can however be difficult to achieve in some trials, [6] for example, surgery or physical therapy. Poor blinding can exaggerate the perceived effects of treatment, particularly if any such effects are small. [7] Blinding should be appropriate to the study, and is ideally double blind, wherein neither the patient nor doctor is aware of whether they are in the control or test group, eliminating any such psychological effects from the study.[ citation needed ]

Withdrawals and dropouts

Withdrawals and dropouts are those patients who fail to complete a course of treatment, or fail to report back on its outcome to the researchers. The reasons for doing so might be varied: the individuals may have moved away, abandoned the course of treatment, or died. Whatever the reason, the attrition rate can skew results of a study, particularly for those subjects who ceased treatment due to perceived inefficacy. In smoking cessation studies, for example, it is routine to consider all dropouts as failures. [8]

Jadad questionnaire

A three-point questionnaire forms the basis for a Jadad score. [1] Each question was to be answered with either a yes or a no. Each yes would score a single point, each no zero points; there were to be no fractional points. The Jadad team stated that they expected it should take no longer than ten minutes to score any individual paper. The questions were as follows: Was the study described as randomized?, Was the study described as double blind? and Was there a description of withdrawals and dropouts? [1]

To receive the corresponding point, an article should describe the number of withdrawals and dropouts, in each of the study groups, and the underlying reasons. Additional points were given if: The method of randomisation was described in the paper, and that method was appropriate. or The method of blinding was described, and it was appropriate. [1]

Points would be deducted if: The method of randomisation was described, but was inappropriate, or The method of blinding was described, but was inappropriate. [1]

A clinical trial could therefore receive a Jadad score of between zero and five. The Jadad scale is sometimes described as a five-point scale, though there are only three questions.

Uses

The Jadad score may be used in a number of ways:

  1. To evaluate the general quality of medical research in a particular field. [9] [10] [11]
  2. To set a minimum standard for the paper's results to be included in a meta analysis. A researcher conducting a systematic review for example might elect to exclude all papers on the topic with a Jadad score of 3 or less. [12]
  3. For critical analysis of an individual paper.

As of 2008, the Jadad score was the most widely used such assessment in the world, [13] [14] and its seminal paper has been cited in over 3000 scientific works.

Criticism

Critics have charged that the Jadad scale is flawed, being over-simplistic and placing too much emphasis on blinding, [15] [16] and can show low consistency between different raters. [17] Furthermore, it does not take into account allocation concealment, viewed by The Cochrane Collaboration as paramount to avoid bias. [18]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Antidepressant</span> Class of medication used to treat depression and other conditions

Antidepressants are a class of medications used to treat major depressive disorder, anxiety disorders, chronic pain, and addiction.

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is "the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients." The aim of EBM is to integrate the experience of the clinician, the values of the patient, and the best available scientific information to guide decision-making about clinical management. The term was originally used to describe an approach to teaching the practice of medicine and improving decisions by individual physicians about individual patients.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Meta-analysis</span> Statistical method that summarizes and or integrates data from multiple sources

Meta-analysis is the statistical combination of the results of multiple studies addressing a similar research question. An important part of this method involves computing an effect size across all of the studies; this involves extracting effect sizes and variance measures from various studies. Meta-analyses are integral in supporting research grant proposals, shaping treatment guidelines, and influencing health policies. They are also pivotal in summarizing existing research to guide future studies, thereby cementing their role as a fundamental methodology in metascience. Meta-analyses are often, but not always, important components of a systematic review procedure. For instance, a meta-analysis may be conducted on several clinical trials of a medical treatment, in an effort to obtain a better understanding of how well the treatment works.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Placebo</span> Substance or treatment of no therapeutic value

A placebo can be roughly defined as a sham medical treatment. Common placebos include inert tablets, inert injections, sham surgery, and other procedures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Randomized controlled trial</span> Form of scientific experiment

A randomized controlled trial is a form of scientific experiment used to control factors not under direct experimental control. Examples of RCTs are clinical trials that compare the effects of drugs, surgical techniques, medical devices, diagnostic procedures, diets or other medical treatments.

In a blind or blinded experiment, information which may influence the participants of the experiment is withheld until after the experiment is complete. Good blinding can reduce or eliminate experimental biases that arise from a participants' expectations, observer's effect on the participants, observer bias, confirmation bias, and other sources. A blind can be imposed on any participant of an experiment, including subjects, researchers, technicians, data analysts, and evaluators. In some cases, while blinding would be useful, it is impossible or unethical. For example, it is not possible to blind a patient to their treatment in a physical therapy intervention. A good clinical protocol ensures that blinding is as effective as possible within ethical and practical constraints.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Scientific control</span> Methods employed to reduce error in science tests

A scientific control is an experiment or observation designed to minimize the effects of variables other than the independent variable. This increases the reliability of the results, often through a comparison between control measurements and the other measurements. Scientific controls are a part of the scientific method.

Clinical study design is the formulation of trials and experiments, as well as observational studies in medical, clinical and other types of research involving human beings. The goal of a clinical study is to assess the safety, efficacy, and / or the mechanism of action of an investigational medicinal product (IMP) or procedure, or new drug or device that is in development, but potentially not yet approved by a health authority. It can also be to investigate a drug, device or procedure that has already been approved but is still in need of further investigation, typically with respect to long-term effects or cost-effectiveness.

A hierarchy of evidence, comprising levels of evidence (LOEs), that is, evidence levels (ELs), is a heuristic used to rank the relative strength of results obtained from experimental research, especially medical research. There is broad agreement on the relative strength of large-scale, epidemiological studies. More than 80 different hierarchies have been proposed for assessing medical evidence. The design of the study and the endpoints measured affect the strength of the evidence. In clinical research, the best evidence for treatment efficacy is mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Systematic reviews of completed, high-quality randomized controlled trials – such as those published by the Cochrane Collaboration – rank the same as systematic review of completed high-quality observational studies in regard to the study of side effects. Evidence hierarchies are often applied in evidence-based practices and are integral to evidence-based medicine (EBM).

In a randomized experiment, allocation concealment hides the sorting of trial participants into treatment groups so that this knowledge cannot be exploited. Adequate allocation concealment serves to prevent study participants from influencing treatment allocations for subjects. Studies with poor allocation concealment are prone to selection bias.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Randomized experiment</span> Experiment using randomness in some aspect, usually to aid in removal of bias

In science, randomized experiments are the experiments that allow the greatest reliability and validity of statistical estimates of treatment effects. Randomization-based inference is especially important in experimental design and in survey sampling.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Observational study</span> Study with uncontrolled variable of interest

In fields such as epidemiology, social sciences, psychology and statistics, an observational study draws inferences from a sample to a population where the independent variable is not under the control of the researcher because of ethical concerns or logistical constraints. One common observational study is about the possible effect of a treatment on subjects, where the assignment of subjects into a treated group versus a control group is outside the control of the investigator. This is in contrast with experiments, such as randomized controlled trials, where each subject is randomly assigned to a treated group or a control group. Observational studies, for lacking an assignment mechanism, naturally present difficulties for inferential analysis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Esketamine</span> Medication

Esketamine, sold under the brand names Spravato and Ketanest among others, is the S(+) enantiomer of ketamine. It is a dissociative hallucinogen drug used as a general anesthetic and as an antidepressant for treatment of depression. Esketamine is the active enantiomer of ketamine in terms of NMDA receptor antagonism and is more potent than racemic ketamine.

A glossary of terms used in clinical research.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Placebo-controlled study</span>

Placebo-controlled studies are a way of testing a medical therapy in which, in addition to a group of subjects that receives the treatment to be evaluated, a separate control group receives a sham "placebo" treatment which is specifically designed to have no real effect. Placebos are most commonly used in blinded trials, where subjects do not know whether they are receiving real or placebo treatment. Often, there is also a further "natural history" group that does not receive any treatment at all.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dupilumab</span> Drug used to treat allergic diseases

Dupilumab, sold under the brand name Dupixent, is a monoclonal antibody blocking interleukin 4 and interleukin 13, used for allergic diseases such as atopic dermatitis (eczema), asthma and nasal polyps which result in chronic sinusitis. It is also used for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis and prurigo nodularis.

A significant amount of research has been performed on glycosaminoglycans, especially glucosamine and chondroitin, for the treatment of arthritis. These compounds are commonly marketed as nutritional supplements and numerous 'soft therapeutic claims' are made about their health benefits - especially in aging populations. Since glucosamine is a precursor for glycosaminoglycans, and glycosaminoglycans are major components of cartilage, ingesting glucosamine might nourish joints, and thereby alleviate arthritis symptoms. Authoritative opinions on the actual therapeutic value of these compounds have been very mixed.

Isabelle Boutron is a professor of epidemiology at the Université Paris Cité and head of the INSERM- METHODS team within the Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS). She was originally trained in rheumatology and later switched to a career in epidemiology and public health. She is also deputy director of the French EQUATOR Centre, member of the SPIRIT-CONSORT executive committee, director of Cochrane France and co-convenor of the Bias Methods group of the Cochrane Collaboration.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dextromethorphan/bupropion</span> Combination medication

Dextromethorphan/bupropion (DXM/BUP), sold under the brand name Auvelity, is a combination medication for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). Its active components are dextromethorphan (DXM) and bupropion. Patients who stayed on the medication had an average of 11% greater reduction in depressive symptoms than placebo in an FDA approval trial. It is taken as a tablet by mouth.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alex Jadad</span> Colombian-Canadian physician, philosopher, and writer (born 1963)

Alejandro R. Jadad Bechara is a Canadian-Colombian physician whose work focuses on creating a pandemic of health through creative human-machine collaboration powered by scientific evidence and collaboration across traditional boundaries. He is also known as the researcher responsible for the development of the Jadad Scale, the first validated tool to assess the methodological quality of clinical trials. He also co-created the methodology behind 'Computational Management', a systematic approach to facilitate task automation for the integration of artificial intelligence into existing workflows.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Jadad, A.R.; Moore R.A.; Carroll D.; Jenkinson C.; Reynolds D.J.M.; Gavaghan D.J.; McQuay H.J. (1996). "Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?". Controlled Clinical Trials. 17 (1): 1–12. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4. PMID   8721797.
  2. ↑ Jadad, Alejandro R.; Enkin, Murray (2007). Randomized Controlled Trials: Questions, Answers and Musings (2nd ed.). Blackwell. ISBN   978-1-4051-3266-4.
  3. 1 2 Chow, Shein-Chung; Liu, Jen-pei (2004). Design and Analysis of Clinical Trials. Wiley. p. 2. ISBN   978-0-471-24985-6.
  4. ↑ Brian, Everitt; Pickles, Andrew (2004). Statistical Aspects of the Design and Analysis of Clinical Trials. Imperial College Press. p. 5. ISBN   978-1-86094-441-3.
  5. 1 2 Colditz, G.A.; Miller J.N.; Mosteller F. (1989). "How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy". Statistics in Medicine. 8 (4): 441–454. doi:10.1002/sim.4780080408. PMID   2727468.
  6. 1 2 3 Day, Simon J; Altman, Douglas G (2000). "Blinding in clinical trials and other studies". British Medical Journal. 321 (7259): 504. doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7259.504. PMC   1118396 . PMID   10948038.
  7. ↑ Altman, DG; Schulz, KF; Moher, D; Egger, M; Davidoff, F; Elbourne, D; Gøtzsche, PC; Lang, T; CONSORT GROUP (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) (2001-04-17). "The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration". Annals of Internal Medicine. 134 (8): 663–694. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00012. PMID   11304107. S2CID   12834600.
  8. ↑ Lancaster T, Stead L (1999). Dealing with drop-outs in clinical trials and meta-analyses. 7th Best Evidence Health Care Cochrane Colloquium. Universita San Tommaso d'Aquino. p. 43.
  9. ↑ White, Adrian; Ernst, Edzard (1999). Acupuncture: A Scientific Appraisal. Elsevier. p. 109. ISBN   978-0-7506-4163-0.
  10. ↑ Wang, Gang; et al. (2007). "The quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials of traditional Chinese medicine". Clinical Therapeutics. 29 (7): 1456–1467. doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2007.07.023. PMID   17825697.
  11. ↑ Welk, B.; Afshar, K.; MacNeily, A.E. (2006). "Randomized controlled trials in pediatric urology: room for improvement". J Urol. 176 (1): 306–310. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(06)00560-X. PMID   16753430.
  12. ↑ Simon, Stephen D. (2006). Statistical Evidence in Medical Trials: What Do the Data Really Tell Us?. Oxford University Press. p. 122. ISBN   978-0-19-856761-5.
  13. ↑ Hayes, R.B.; Sackett, D.L.; Guyatt, G.H.; Tugwell, P. (2005). Clinical Epidemiology. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. p. 31. ISBN   978-0-7817-4524-6.
  14. ↑ Olivo, SA; Macedo LG; Gadotti IC; Fuentes J; Stanton T; Magee DJ (2008). "Scales to Assess the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials : A Systematic Review". Physical Therapy. 88 (2): 156–75. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20070147 . ISSN   0031-9023. PMID   18073267.
  15. ↑ Berger, V. W. (2006). "Is the Jadad Score the Proper Evaluation of Trials?". J. Rheumatol. 33 (8): 1710–1712. ISSN   0315-162X. PMID   16881132. Archived from the original on 2008-02-20.
  16. ↑ "Systematic Review of Quality Assessment Instruments for Randomized Control Trials". The Cochrane Collaboration. Retrieved 2008-11-12.
  17. ↑ Clark, H.D.; et al. (Oct 1999). "Assessing the quality of randomized trials: reliability of the Jadad scale". Controlled Clinical Trials . 20 (5): 448–52. doi:10.1016/S0197-2456(99)00026-4. PMID   10503804.
  18. ↑ Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC (editors). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.