Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

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

  • Andrija Babić (Correspondent Author)
  • , Ognjen Barcot (Second Author)
  • , Tomislav Visković (Third Author)
  • , Frano Šarić (Fourth Autor)
  • , Aleksandar Kirkovski (Fifth Author)
  • , Ivana Barun (Another Number Author)
  • , Zvonimir Križanac (Another Number Author)
  • , Roshan Arjun Ananda
  • , Yuli Viviana Fuentes Barreiro (Another Number Author)
  • , Narges Malih (Another Number Author)
  • , Daiana Anne‐Marie Dimcea (Another Number Author)
  • , Josipa Ordulj (Another Number Author)
  • , Ishanka Weerasekara (Another Number Author)
  • , Matteo Spezia (Another Number Author)
  • , Marija Franka Žuljević (Another Number Author)
  • , Jelena Šuto (Another Number Author)
  • , Luca Tancredi (Another Number Author)
  • , Anđela Pijuk (Another Number Author)
  • , Susanna Sammali (Another Number Author)
  • , Veronica Iascone (Another Number Author)
  • Thilo von Groote (Another Number Author), Tina Poklepović Peričić (Another Number Author), Livia Puljak (Another Number Author)
  • Institute of Emergency Medicine in Split-Dalmatia County
  • Split University Hospital
  • PZU MK & RR Centar Medikal
  • Box Hill Hospital
  • University of the Balearic Islands
  • Elias Emergency University Hospital
  • Dugo Selo
  • Western Norway University of Applied Sciences
  • University of Padua
  • University of Split School of Medicine
  • Geriatric Rehabilitation Clinic of the Hessing Foundation
  • University of Bologna
  • University of Florence
  • University Hospital Münster
  • University of Split School of Medicine
  • Catholic University of Croatia

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

23 Scopus citations

Abstract

Risk 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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)430-440
Number of pages11
JournalResearch Synthesis Methods
Volume15
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2024

Strategic Focuses

  • Vida Humana Plena (Vita)​

Article Classification

  • Full research article

Indexación Internacional (Artículo)

  • SCOPUS

Scopus-Q Quartil

  • Q1

ISI- Q Quartil

  • Ninguno

Categoría Publindex

  • A1

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Frequency of use and adequacy of Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 in non‐Cochrane systematic reviews published in 2020: Meta‐research study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this