Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
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; Poklepovic Pericic, Tina; Pieper, Dawid; Puljak, Livia.
Afiliação
  • Babic A; Institute of Emergency Medicine in Split-Dalmatia County, Split, Croatia.
  • Vuka I; Laboratory for Pain Research, Department of Anatomy, Histology and Embryology, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.
  • Saric F; Department of Radiology, University Hospital Split, Split, Croatia.
  • Proloscic I; University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.
  • Slapnicar E; University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.
  • Cavar J; Department of Neuroscience, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Canada.
  • Poklepovic Pericic T; Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.
  • Pieper D; Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany.
  • Puljak L; Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and Health Care, Catholic University of Croatia, Zagreb, Croatia. Electronic address: livia.puljak@gmail.com.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 119: 57-64, 2020 03.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31734347
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

The objective of the study was to analyze methods of assessing "overall bias" in Cochrane reviews of interventions published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and sensitivity analyses related to overall risk of bias (RoB). STUDY DESIGN AND

SETTING:

From Cochrane reviews published within 3 years, from July 2015 to June 2018, we extracted data regarding methods of judging overall bias for a single trial, as well as details regarding methods used in frequency of RoB in sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS:

Of the 1,452 analyzed Cochrane reviews, 409 mentioned assessment of overall RoB on a study level. In 107 reviews, authors clearly specified key domains that determined the overall RoB, whereas in the remaining reviews, assessment of overall bias was not in line with the Cochrane Handbook. Among 268 Cochrane reviews that had any RoB-related sensitivity analysis, in 56 (21%) reviews, the authors reported a significant change for at least one outcome compared with the initial analysis.

CONCLUSION:

Highly heterogeneous approaches to summarizing overall RoB on a study level and using RoB for sensitivity analyses may yield inconsistent and incomparable results across Cochrane reviews.
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: Diagnostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2020 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: Diagnostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article