Assessing risk of bias judgments for blinding of outcome assessors in Cochrane reviews

被引：9

作者：

Barcot, Ognjen ^{[1
]}

Dosenovic, Svjetlana ^{[2
]}

Boric, Matija ^{[1
]}

Pericic, Tina Poklepovic ^{[3
]}

Cavar, Marija ^{[4
]}

Kadic, Antonia Jelicic ^{[5
]}

Puljak, Livia ^{[6
]}

机构：

[1] Univ Hosp Split, Dept Abdominal Surg, Split, Croatia

[2] Univ Hosp Split, Dept Anesthesiol & Intens Care, Split, Croatia

[3] Univ Split, Dept Res Biomed & Hlth, Sch Med, Split, Croatia

[4] Univ Hosp Split, Dept Radiol, Split, Croatia

[5] Univ Hosp Split, Dept Pediat, Split, Croatia

[6] Catholic Univ Croatia, Ctr Evidence Based Med & Hlth Care, Zagreb, Croatia

来源：

JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH | 2020年 / 9卷 / 08期

关键词：

blinding; Cochrane; detection bias; risk of bias; systematic reviews; outcome assessors; MAJORITY; TOOL;

D O I：

10.2217/cer-2019-0181

中图分类号：

R19 [保健组织与事业（卫生事业管理）];

学科分类号：

摘要：

Aim: Adequate judging of risk of bias (RoB) for blinding of outcome assessors (detection bias) is important for supporting highest level of evidence. Materials & methods: Judgments and supporting comments for detection bias were retrieved from RoB tables reported in Cochrane reviews. We categorized comments, and then compared judgment and supporting comment with instructions from the Cochrane Handbook. Results: We analyzed 8656 judgments for detection bias from 7626 trials included in 575 reviews. Overall, 1909 judgments (22%) were not in line with the Cochrane Handbook. In 9% of trials, the authors split the detection bias domain according to outcomes. Here, prevalence of inadequate judgments was 19%. Conclusion: Interventions to improve RoB assessments in systematic reviews should be explored.

引用

页码：585 / 593

页数：9

共 16 条

[1]

[Anonymous], 2014, REV MAN REVMAN COMP

[2]

Babic A, 2019, BMC MED RES METHODOL, V19, P1

[3] Risk of bias judgments for random sequence generation in Cochrane systematic reviews were frequently not in line with Cochrane Handbook [J].

Barcot, Ognjen ;

Boric, Matija ;

Pericic, Tina Poklepovic ;

Cavar, Marija ;

Dosenovic, Svjetlana ;

Vuka, Ivana ;

Puljak, Livia .

BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2019, 19 (01)

[4] Risk of bias assessments for blinding of participants and personnel in Cochrane reviews were frequently inadequate [J].

Barcot, Ognjen ;

Boric, Matija ;

Dosenovic, Svjetlana ;

Pericic, Tina Poklepovic ;

Cavar, Marija ;

Puljak, Livia .

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2019, 113 :104-113

[5]

Berger VW, 2005, STAT PRACT, P1, DOI 10.1002/0470863641

[6] Detecting selection bias in randomized clinical trials [J].

Berger, VW ;

Exner, DV .

CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 1999, 20 (04) :319-327

[7] Variation in hospital length of stay: Do physicians adapt their length of stay decisions to what is usual in the hospital where they work? [J].

de Jong, JD ;

Westert, GP ;

Lagoe, R ;

Groenewegen, PP .

HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2006, 41 (02) :374-394

[8]

Higgins JP, 2011, BMJ, DOI DOI 10.1136/BMJ.D5928D5928-D5928

[9] Observer bias in randomised clinical trials with binary outcomes: systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors [J].

Hrobjartsson, Asbjorn ;

Thomsen, Ann Sofia Skou ;

Emanuelsson, Frida ;

Tendal, Britta ;

Hilden, Jorgen ;

Boutron, Isabelle ;

Ravaud, Philippe ;

Brorson, Stig .

BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2012, 344

[10] Blinded Outcome Assessment Was Infrequently Used and Poorly Reported in Open Trials [J].

Kahan, Brennan C. ;

Rehal, Sunita ;

Cro, Suzie .

PLOS ONE, 2015, 10 (06)

← 1 2 →