Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Frequency of use and adequacy of Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 in non-Cochrane systematic reviews published in 2020: Meta-research study.
Babic, Andrija; Barcot, Ognjen; Viskovic, Tomislav; Saric, Frano; Kirkovski, Aleksandar; Barun, Ivana; Krizanac, Zvonimir; Ananda, Roshan Arjun; Fuentes Barreiro, Yuli Viviana; Malih, Narges; Dimcea, Daiana Anne-Marie; Ordulj, Josipa; Weerasekara, Ishanka; Spezia, Matteo; Zuljevic, Marija Franka; Suto, Jelena; Tancredi, Luca; Pijuk, Andela; Sammali, Susanna; Iascone, Veronica; von Groote, Thilo; Poklepovic Pericic, Tina; Puljak, Livia.
Afiliação
  • Babic A; Institute of Emergency Medicine in Split-Dalmatia County, Split, Croatia.
  • Barcot O; Department of Surgery, University Hospital Split, Split, Croatia.
  • Viskovic T; Institute of Emergency Medicine in Split-Dalmatia County, Split, Croatia.
  • Saric F; Department of Radiology, University Hospital Split, Split, Croatia.
  • Kirkovski A; PZU MK & RR Centar Medikal, Bitola, Macedonia.
  • Barun I; Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Split, Split, Croatia.
  • Krizanac Z; Department of Surgery, University Hospital Split, Split, Croatia.
  • Ananda RA; Department of General Medicine, Box Hill Hospital, Eastern Health, Box Hill, Australia.
  • Fuentes Barreiro YV; Faculty of Medicine, Universidad de La Sabana, Bogota, Colombia.
  • Malih N; Research Group on Global Health and Human Development, University of the Balearic Islands (UIB), Palma, Spain.
  • Dimcea DA; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Elias Emergency University Hospital, Bucharest, Romania.
  • Ordulj J; Dental Clinic, Dugo Selo, Croatia.
  • Weerasekara I; Department of Health and Functioning, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway.
  • Spezia M; University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
  • Zuljevic MF; Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.
  • Suto J; Department of Oncology and Radiotherapy, University Hospital of Split, Split, Croatia.
  • Tancredi L; Geriatric Rehabilitation Clinic of the Hessing Foundation, Augsburg, Germany.
  • Pijuk A; Medical School, Coburg, Germany.
  • Sammali S; Division of Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital of Split, Split, Croatia.
  • Iascone V; University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
  • von Groote T; University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
  • Poklepovic Pericic T; University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
  • Puljak L; Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany.
Res Synth Methods ; 15(3): 430-440, 2024 May.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38262609
ABSTRACT
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.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Projetos de Pesquisa / Viés / Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto / Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Res Synth Methods Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Croácia

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Projetos de Pesquisa / Viés / Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto / Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Res Synth Methods Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Croácia