Frequency of use and adequacy of Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 in non‐Cochrane systematic reviews published in 2020: Meta‐research study

Author:

Babić Andrija1ORCID,Barcot Ognjen2ORCID,Visković Tomislav1ORCID,Šarić Frano3ORCID,Kirkovski Aleksandar4ORCID,Barun Ivana5ORCID,Križanac Zvonimir2ORCID,Ananda Roshan Arjun6ORCID,Fuentes Barreiro Yuli Viviana7ORCID,Malih Narges8ORCID,Dimcea Daiana Anne‐Marie9ORCID,Ordulj Josipa10ORCID,Weerasekara Ishanka11ORCID,Spezia Matteo12ORCID,Žuljević Marija Franka13ORCID,Šuto Jelena14ORCID,Tancredi Luca1516ORCID,Pijuk Anđela17ORCID,Sammali Susanna1819ORCID,Iascone Veronica18ORCID,von Groote Thilo20ORCID,Poklepović Peričić Tina21ORCID,Puljak Livia22ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Institute of Emergency Medicine in Split‐Dalmatia County Split Croatia

2. Department of Surgery University Hospital Split Split Croatia

3. Department of Radiology University Hospital Split Split Croatia

4. PZU MK & RR Centar Medikal Bitola Macedonia

5. Department of Ophthalmology University Hospital Split Split Croatia

6. Department of General Medicine Box Hill Hospital, Eastern Health Box Hill Australia

7. Faculty of Medicine Universidad de La Sabana Bogota Colombia

8. Research Group on Global Health and Human Development University of the Balearic Islands (UIB) Palma Spain

9. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Elias Emergency University Hospital Bucharest Romania

10. Dental Clinic Dugo Selo Croatia

11. Department of Health and Functioning, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences Western Norway University of Applied Sciences Bergen Norway

12. University of Padua Padua Italy

13. Centre for Evidence‐Based Medicine University of Split School of Medicine Split Croatia

14. Department of Oncology and Radiotherapy University Hospital of Split Split Croatia

15. Geriatric Rehabilitation Clinic of the Hessing Foundation Augsburg Germany

16. Medical School Coburg Germany

17. Division of Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine University Hospital of Split Split Croatia

18. University of Bologna Bologna Italy

19. University of Florence Florence Italy

20. Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine University Hospital Münster Münster Germany

21. Department of Research in Medicine University of Split School of Medicine Split Croatia

22. Center for Evidence‐Based Medicine and Health Care Catholic University of Croatia Zagreb Croatia

Abstract

AbstractRisk 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.

Publisher

Wiley

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3