Frequency of use and adequacy of Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 in non-Cochrane systematic reviews published in 2020: Meta-research study

被引:9
作者
Babic, Andrija [1 ]
Barcot, Ognjen [2 ]
Viskovic, Tomislav [1 ]
Saric, Frano [3 ]
Kirkovski, Aleksandar [4 ]
Barun, Ivana [5 ]
Krizanac, Zvonimir [2 ]
Ananda, Roshan Arjun [6 ]
Barreiro, Yuli Viviana Fuentes [7 ]
Malih, Narges [8 ]
Dimcea, Daiana Anne-Marie [9 ]
Ordulj, Josipa [10 ]
Weerasekara, Ishanka [11 ]
Spezia, Matteo [12 ]
Zuljevic, Marija Franka [13 ]
Suto, Jelena [14 ]
Tancredi, Luca [15 ,16 ]
Pijuk, Andela [17 ]
Sammali, Susanna [18 ,19 ]
Iascone, Veronica [18 ]
von Groote, Thilo [20 ]
Pericic, Tina Poklepovic [21 ]
Puljak, Livia [22 ]
机构
[1] Inst Emergency Med Split Dalmatia Cty, Soltanska 2, Split 21000, Croatia
[2] Univ Hosp Split, Dept Surg, Split, Croatia
[3] Univ Hosp Split, Dept Radiol, Split, Croatia
[4] PZU MK & RR Ctr Med, Bitola, North Macedonia
[5] Univ Hosp Split, Dept Ophthalmol, Split, Croatia
[6] Box Hill Hosp, Dept Gen Med, Eastern Hlth, Box Hill, Australia
[7] Univ La Sabana, Fac Med, Bogota, Colombia
[8] Univ Balear Isl UIB, Res Grp Global Hlth & Human Dev, Palma De Mallorca, Spain
[9] Elias Emergency Univ Hosp, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Bucharest, Romania
[10] Dent Clin, Dugo Selo, Croatia
[11] Western Norway Univ Appl Sci, Fac Hlth & Social Sci, Dept Hlth & Functioning, Bergen, Norway
[12] Univ Padua, Padua, Italy
[13] Univ Split, Ctr Evidence Based Med, Sch Med, Split, Croatia
[14] Univ Hosp Split, Dept Oncol & Radiotherapy, Split, Croatia
[15] Geriatr Rehabil Clin Hessing Fdn, Augsburg, Germany
[16] Med Sch, Coburg, Germany
[17] Univ Hosp Split, Dept Internal Med, Div Hematol, Split, Croatia
[18] Univ Bologna, Bologna, Italy
[19] Univ Florence, Florence, Italy
[20] Univ Hosp Munster, Dept Anaesthesiol Intens Care & Pain Med, Munster, Germany
[21] Univ Split, Sch Med, Dept Res Med, Split, Croatia
[22] Catholic Univ Croatia, Ctr Evidence Based Med & Hlth Care, Zagreb, Croatia
关键词
adequacy; cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0; improvement; inconsistency; non-cochrane systematic reviews; MAJORITY;
D O I
10.1002/jrsm.1695
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Risk of bias (RoB) assessment is essential to the systematic review methodology. The new version of the Cochrane RoB tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) was published in 2019 to address limitations identified since the first version of the tool was published in 2008 and to increase the reliability of assessments. This study analyzed the frequency of usage of the RoB 2 and the adequacy of reporting the RoB 2 assessments in non-Cochrane reviews published in 2020. This meta-research study included non-Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions published in 2020. For the reviews that used the RoB 2 tool, we analyzed the reporting of the RoB 2 assessment. Among 3880 included reviews, the Cochrane RoB 1 tool was the most frequently used (N = 2228; 57.4%), followed by the Cochrane RoB 2 tool (N = 267; 6.9%). From 267 reviews that reported using the RoB 2 tool, 213 (79.8%) actually used it. In 26 (12.2%) reviews, erroneous statements were used to indicate the RoB 2 assessment. Only 20 (9.4%) reviews presented a complete RoB 2 assessment with a detailed table of answers to all signaling questions. The judgment of risk of bias by the RoB 2 tool was not justified by a comment in 158 (74.2%) reviews. Only in 33 (14.5%) of reviews the judgment in all domains was justified in the accompanying comment. In most reviews (81.7%), the RoB was inadequately assessed at the study level. In conclusion, the majority of non-Cochrane reviews published in 2020 still used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool. Many reviews used the RoB 2 tool inadequately. Further studies about the uptake and the use of the RoB 2 tool are needed.
引用
收藏
页码:430 / 440
页数:11
相关论文
共 24 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 2020, STAT EXP IMPL RISK B
  • [2] Overall bias methods and their use in sensitivity analysis of Cochrane reviews were not consistent
    Babic, Andrija
    Vuka, Ivana
    Saric, Frano
    Proloscic, Ivona
    Slapnicar, Ema
    Cavar, Jakica
    Pericic, Tina Poklepovic
    Pieper, Dawid
    Puljak, Livia
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2020, 119 : 57 - 64
  • [3] The judgement of biases included in the category "other bias" in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: a systematic survey
    Babic, Andrija
    Pijuk, Andela
    Brazdilova, Lucie
    Georgieva, Yuliyana
    Raposo Pereira, Marco Antonio
    Pericic, Tina Poklepovic
    Puljak, Livia
    [J]. BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2019, 19 (1)
  • [4] Assessments of attrition bias in Cochrane systematic reviews are highly inconsistent and thus hindering trial comparability
    Babic, Andrija
    Tokalic, Ruzica
    Silva Cunha, Joao Amilcar
    Novak, Ivana
    Suto, Jelena
    Vidak, Marin
    Miosic, Ivana
    Vuka, Ivana
    Pericic, Tina Poklepovic
    Puljak, Livia
    [J]. BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2019, 19 (1)
  • [5] Assessing the risk of performance and detection bias in Cochrane reviews as a joint domain is less accurate compared to two separate domains
    Barcot, Ognjen
    Boric, Matija
    Dosenovic, Svjetlana
    Puljak, Livia
    [J]. BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2021, 21 (01)
  • [6] Enhanced access to recommendations from the Cochrane Handbook for improving authors' judgments about risk of bias: A randomized controlled trial
    Barcot, Ognjen
    Ivanda, Matej
    Buljan, Ivan
    Pieper, Dawid
    Puljak, Livia
    [J]. RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2021, 12 (05) : 618 - 629
  • [7] Assessing risk of bias judgments for blinding of outcome assessors in Cochrane reviews
    Barcot, Ognjen
    Dosenovic, Svjetlana
    Boric, Matija
    Pericic, Tina Poklepovic
    Cavar, Marija
    Kadic, Antonia Jelicic
    Puljak, Livia
    [J]. JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH, 2020, 9 (08) : 585 - 593
  • [8] Risk of bias judgments for random sequence generation in Cochrane systematic reviews were frequently not in line with Cochrane Handbook
    Barcot, Ognjen
    Boric, Matija
    Pericic, Tina Poklepovic
    Cavar, Marija
    Dosenovic, Svjetlana
    Vuka, Ivana
    Puljak, Livia
    [J]. BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2019, 19 (01)
  • [9] Risk of bias assessments for blinding of participants and personnel in Cochrane reviews were frequently inadequate
    Barcot, Ognjen
    Boric, Matija
    Dosenovic, Svjetlana
    Pericic, Tina Poklepovic
    Cavar, Marija
    Puljak, Livia
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2019, 113 : 104 - 113
  • [10] Adopting AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews: speed of the tool uptake and barriers for its adoption
    Bojcic, Ruzica
    Todoric, Mate
    Puljak, Livia
    [J]. BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2022, 22 (01)