Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Recommendations for assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews of health-care interventions.
Viswanathan, Meera; Patnode, Carrie D; Berkman, Nancy D; Bass, Eric B; Chang, Stephanie; Hartling, Lisa; Murad, M Hassan; Treadwell, Jonathan R; Kane, Robert L.
Afiliação
  • Viswanathan M; RTI International-University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Evidence-based Practice Center, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA. Electronic address: viswanathan@rti.org.
  • Patnode CD; Kaiser Permanente Research Affiliates Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, OR, USA.
  • Berkman ND; RTI International-University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Evidence-based Practice Center, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
  • Bass EB; Johns Hopkins University Evidence-Based Practice Center, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • Chang S; Center for Evidence and Practice Improvement, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD, USA.
  • Hartling L; University of Alberta Evidence-based Practice Center, Edmonton, Canada.
  • Murad MH; Evidence-based Practice Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
  • Treadwell JR; ECRI Institute Evidence-Based Practice Center, Plymouth Meeting, PA, USA.
  • Kane RL; University of Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 97: 26-34, 2018 05.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29248724
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES:

Risk-of-bias assessment is a central component of systematic reviews, but little conclusive empirical evidence exists on the validity of such assessments. In the context of such uncertainty, we present pragmatic recommendations that promote transparency and reproducibility in processes, address methodological advances in the risk-of-bias assessment, and can be applied consistently across review topics. STUDY DESIGN AND

SETTING:

Epidemiological study design principles; available empirical evidence, risk-of-bias tools, and guidance; and workgroup consensus.

RESULTS:

We developed recommendations for assessing the risk of bias of studies of health-care interventions specific to framing the focus and scope of risk-of-bias assessment; selecting the risk-of-bias categories; choosing assessment instruments; and conducting, analyzing, and presenting results of risk-of-bias assessments. Key recommendations include transparency and reproducibility of judgments, separating risk of bias from other constructs such as applicability and precision, and evaluating the risk of bias per outcome. We recommend against certain past practices, such as focusing on reporting quality, relying solely on study design or numerical quality scores, and automatically downgrading for industry sponsorship.

CONCLUSION:

Risk-of-bias assessment remains a challenging but essential step in systematic reviews. We presented standards to promote transparency of judgments.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Projetos de Pesquisa / Viés / Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto Tipo de estudo: Etiology_studies / Guideline / Risk_factors_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Projetos de Pesquisa / Viés / Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto Tipo de estudo: Etiology_studies / Guideline / Risk_factors_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article