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

[11]

Khalafallah A, 2010, MEDITERR J HEMATOL I, V2, DOI [10.4084/MJHID.2010.005, 10.1136/bmj.l4898]

[12] Accuracy of the Berger-Exner test for detecting third-order selection bias in randomised controlled trials: a simulation-based investigation [J].

Mickenautsch, Steffen ;

Fu, Bo ;

Gudehithlu, Sheila ;

Berger, Vance W. .

BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2014, 14

[13] Subjective and objective outcomes in randomized clinical trials: definitions differed in methods publications and were often absent from trial reports [J].

Moustgaard, Helene ;

Bello, Segun ;

Miller, Franklin G. ;

Hrobjartsson, Asbjorn .

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2014, 67 (12) :1327-1334

[14] In Cochrane reviews, risk of bias assessments for allocation concealment were frequently not in line with Cochrane's Handbook guidance [J].

Propadalo, Ivana ;

Tranfic, Mia ;

Vuka, Ivana ;

Barcot, Ognjen ;

Pericic, Tina Poklepovic ;

Puljak, Livia .

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2019, 106 :10-17

[15] Cochrane risk of bias tool was used inadequately in the majority of non-Cochrane systematic reviews [J].

Puljak, Livia ;

Ramic, Irma ;

Naharro, Coral Arriola ;

Brezova, Jana ;

Lin, Yi-Chen ;

Surdila, Andrada-Alexandra ;

Tomajkova, Ester ;

Medeiros, Ines Farias ;

Nikolovska, Mishela ;

Pericic, Tina Poklepovic ;

Barcot, Ognjen ;

Suarez Salvado, Maria .

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2020, 123 :114-119

[16] Risk of bias assessments for selective reporting were inadequate in the majority of Cochrane reviews [J].

Saric, Frano ;

Barcot, Ognjen ;

Puljak, Livia .

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2019, 112 :53-58

← 1 2 →