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 (Autor Corresponsal), Ognjen Barcot (Segundo Autor), Tomislav Visković (Tercer Autor), Frano Šarić (Cuarto Autor), Aleksandar Kirkovski (Quinto Autor), Ivana Barun (Otro Numero de Autor), Zvonimir Križanac (Otro Numero de Autor), Roshan Arjun Ananda, Yuli Viviana Fuentes Barreiro (Otro Numero de Autor), Narges Malih (Otro Numero de Autor), Daiana Anne‐Marie Dimcea (Otro Numero de Autor), Josipa Ordulj (Otro Numero de Autor), Ishanka Weerasekara (Otro Numero de Autor), Matteo Spezia (Otro Numero de Autor), Marija Franka Žuljević (Otro Numero de Autor), Jelena Šuto (Otro Numero de Autor), Luca Tancredi (Otro Numero de Autor), Anđela Pijuk (Otro Numero de Autor), Susanna Sammali (Otro Numero de Autor), Veronica Iascone (Otro Numero de Autor)Thilo von Groote (Otro Numero de Autor), Tina Poklepović Peričić (Otro Numero de Autor), Livia Puljak (Otro Numero de Autor)

Producción científica: Contribución a una revistaArtículorevisión exhaustiva

15 Citas (Scopus)

Resumen

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.

Idioma originalInglés
Páginas (desde-hasta)430-440
Número de páginas11
PublicaciónResearch Synthesis Methods
Volumen15
N.º3
DOI
EstadoPublicada - may. 2024

Focos Estratégicos

  • Vida Humana Plena (Vita)​

Clasificación de Articulo

  • Artículo completo de investigación

Indexación Internacional (Artículo)

  • SCOPUS

Scopus-Q Quartil

  • Q1

ISI- Q Quartil

  • Ninguno

Categoría Publindex

  • A1

Huella

Profundice en los temas de investigación de 'Frequency of use and adequacy of Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 in non‐Cochrane systematic reviews published in 2020: Meta‐research study'. En conjunto forman una huella única.

Citar esto