Risk of Bias in Iranian Randomized Trials Included in Cochrane Reviews

Author:

Kabir Ali12ORCID,Sofi-Mahmudi Ahmad2ORCID,Karimi Behnagh Arman1ORCID,Eidkhani Vahid1ORCID,Baradaran Hamid Reza32ORCID,Kabiri Payam42ORCID,Haghdoost AliAkbar52ORCID,Mesgarpour Bita2ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Minimally Invasive Surgery Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

2. Cochrane Iran Associate Centre, National Institute for Medical Research Development (NIMAD), Tehran, Iran

3. Endocrine Research Center, Institute of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

5. Social Determinants of Health Research Centre, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

Abstract

Background: Among interventional studies, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the highest level of evidence. However, RCTs can be susceptible to the risk of bias (RoB). Systematic reviews can be performed to appraise RoB in the included articles using evaluative tools. This study aimed to describe the main characteristics and focus on the RoB of RCTs conducted in Iran and included in Cochrane Reviews (CRs). Methods: We searched "Iran" by selecting the "Search All Text" and "Review" fields in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews within Ovid. CRs that included the RCTs conducted in Iran were retrieved. A trial was selected only if it was included in CRs, described as a controlled clinical trial, involved human subjects and CR authors assessed its RoB. The trials were characterized by investigating the relevant articles and the table "Characteristics of included studies" in each CR. The RoB was investigated by collecting the review authors’ judgments based on RoB assessment tables in the CRs. Results: Out of 1166 Iranian RCTs included by 571 CRs, low RoB was found in 44.9% for random sequence generation, 20.8% for allocation concealment, 32.3% for blinding of participants/personnel, 36.5% for blinding of outcome assessors, 56.3% for incomplete outcome data, 41.3% for selective outcome reporting and 53.8% for other sources of bias. Conclusion: The RoB in Iranian RCTs was found to be mostly high or unclear. While this is similar to the global situation, it is recommended that the methodological quality of conducting and reporting RCTs be addressed in Iran.

Publisher

Maad Rayan Publishing Company

Subject

General Medicine

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