Testing the Risk of Bias tool showed low reliability between individual reviewers and across consensus assessments of reviewer pairs-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Testing the Risk of Bias tool showed low reliability between individual reviewers and across consensus assessments of reviewer pairs

Published:2013-09 Issue:9 Volume:66 Page:973-981
ISSN:0895-4356
Container-title:Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
language:en
Short-container-title:Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Author:

Hartling Lisa,Hamm Michele P.,Milne Andrea,Vandermeer Ben,Santaguida P. Lina,Ansari Mohammed,Tsertsvadze Alexander,Hempel Susanne,Shekelle Paul,Dryden Donna M.

Publisher

Elsevier BV

Subject

Epidemiology

Reference16 articles.

1. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions,2009

2. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up?;Bastian;PLoS Med,2010

3. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists;Moher;Control Clin Trials,1995

4. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis;Juni;JAMA,1999

5. Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence;West;Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ),2002

Cited by 135 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Zero‐ and few‐shot prompting of generative large language models provides weak assessment of risk of bias in clinical trials;Research Synthesis Methods;2024-08-23

2. The impact of an online course on agreement rates of the certainty of evidence assessment using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Approach: a before-and-after study;Journal of Clinical Epidemiology;2024-08

3. Exploring the potential of Claude 2 for risk of bias assessment: Using a large language model to assess randomized controlled trials with RoB 2;2024-07-16

4. Disagreements in risk of bias assessment for randomized controlled trials in hypertension-related Cochrane reviews;Trials;2024-06-21

5. Variation observed in consensus judgments between pairs of reviewers when assessing the risk of bias due to missing evidence in a sample of published meta-analyses of nutrition research;Journal of Clinical Epidemiology;2024-02