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

IF 5 2区 生物学 Q1 MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY Research Synthesis Methods Pub Date : 2024-01-23 DOI:10.1002/jrsm.1695
Andrija Babić, Ognjen Barcot, Tomislav Visković, Frano Šarić, Aleksandar Kirkovski, Ivana Barun, Zvonimir Križanac, Roshan Arjun Ananda, Yuli Viviana Fuentes Barreiro, Narges Malih, Daiana Anne-Marie Dimcea, Josipa Ordulj, Ishanka Weerasekara, Matteo Spezia, Marija Franka Žuljević, Jelena Šuto, Luca Tancredi, Anđela Pijuk, Susanna Sammali, Veronica Iascone, Thilo von Groote, Tina Poklepović Peričić, Livia Puljak
{"title":"Frequency of use and adequacy of Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 in non-Cochrane systematic reviews published in 2020: Meta-research study","authors":"Andrija Babić,&nbsp;Ognjen Barcot,&nbsp;Tomislav Visković,&nbsp;Frano Šarić,&nbsp;Aleksandar Kirkovski,&nbsp;Ivana Barun,&nbsp;Zvonimir Križanac,&nbsp;Roshan Arjun Ananda,&nbsp;Yuli Viviana Fuentes Barreiro,&nbsp;Narges Malih,&nbsp;Daiana Anne-Marie Dimcea,&nbsp;Josipa Ordulj,&nbsp;Ishanka Weerasekara,&nbsp;Matteo Spezia,&nbsp;Marija Franka Žuljević,&nbsp;Jelena Šuto,&nbsp;Luca Tancredi,&nbsp;Anđela Pijuk,&nbsp;Susanna Sammali,&nbsp;Veronica Iascone,&nbsp;Thilo von Groote,&nbsp;Tina Poklepović Peričić,&nbsp;Livia Puljak","doi":"10.1002/jrsm.1695","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>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 (<i>N</i> = 2228; 57.4%), followed by the Cochrane RoB 2 tool (<i>N</i> = 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":226,"journal":{"name":"Research Synthesis Methods","volume":"15 3","pages":"430-440"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Synthesis Methods","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jrsm.1695","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
2020年发表的非Cochrane系统综述中Cochrane偏倚风险工具2的使用频率和充分性:元研究。
偏倚风险(RoB)评估对系统综述方法至关重要。用于随机试验的新版 Cochrane RoB 工具(RoB 2)于 2019 年发布,以解决自 2008 年发布第一版工具以来发现的局限性,并提高评估的可靠性。本研究分析了RoB 2的使用频率,以及2020年发表的非Cochrane综述中RoB 2评估报告的充分性。这项荟萃研究纳入了 2020 年发表的非 Cochrane 系统性干预综述。对于使用 RoB 2 工具的综述,我们分析了 RoB 2 评估的报告情况。在纳入的 3880 篇综述中,Cochrane RoB 1 工具的使用频率最高(N = 2228;57.4%),其次是 Cochrane RoB 2 工具(N = 267;6.9%)。在报告使用 RoB 2 工具的 267 篇综述中,有 213 篇(79.8%)实际使用了该工具。在 26 篇(12.2%)综述中,使用了错误的语句来表示 RoB 2 评估。只有 20 篇(9.4%)综述提供了完整的 RoB 2 评估,并附有所有信号问题的详细答案表。在 158 篇(74.2%)综述中,RoB 2 工具对偏倚风险的判断没有通过评论来证明。只有 33 篇(14.5%)综述的所有领域的判断都在随附的注释中说明了理由。在大多数综述(81.7%)中,RoB 在研究层面的评估不足。总之,2020 年发表的大多数非 Cochrane 综述仍然使用 Cochrane RoB 1 工具。许多综述未充分使用 RoB 2 工具。需要进一步研究RoB 2工具的吸收和使用情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Research Synthesis Methods
Research Synthesis Methods MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGYMULTID-MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
CiteScore
16.90
自引率
3.10%
发文量
75
期刊介绍: Research Synthesis Methods is a reputable, peer-reviewed journal that focuses on the development and dissemination of methods for conducting systematic research synthesis. Our aim is to advance the knowledge and application of research synthesis methods across various disciplines. Our journal provides a platform for the exchange of ideas and knowledge related to designing, conducting, analyzing, interpreting, reporting, and applying research synthesis. While research synthesis is commonly practiced in the health and social sciences, our journal also welcomes contributions from other fields to enrich the methodologies employed in research synthesis across scientific disciplines. By bridging different disciplines, we aim to foster collaboration and cross-fertilization of ideas, ultimately enhancing the quality and effectiveness of research synthesis methods. Whether you are a researcher, practitioner, or stakeholder involved in research synthesis, our journal strives to offer valuable insights and practical guidance for your work.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information A tutorial on aggregating evidence from conceptual replication studies using the product Bayes factor Evolving use of the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool in biomedical systematic reviews Exploring methodological approaches used in network meta-analysis of psychological interventions: A scoping review An evaluation of the performance of stopping rules in AI-aided screening for psychological meta-analytical research
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1