Development of ROBUST-RCT: Risk Of Bias instrument for Use in SysTematic reviews-for Randomised Controlled Trials

The BMJ Pub Date : 2025-03-25 DOI:10.1136/bmj-2024-081199
Ying Wang, Sheri Keitz, Matthias Briel, Paul Glasziou, Romina Brignardello-Petersen, Reed A C Siemieniuk, Dena Zeraatkar, Elie A Akl, Susan Armijo-Olivo, Dirk Bassler, Carrol Gamble, Lise Lotte Gluud, Jane Luise Hutton, Luz M Letelier, Philippe Ravaud, Kenneth F Schulz, David J Torgerson, Gordon H Guyatt
{"title":"Development of ROBUST-RCT: Risk Of Bias instrument for Use in SysTematic reviews-for Randomised Controlled Trials","authors":"Ying Wang, Sheri Keitz, Matthias Briel, Paul Glasziou, Romina Brignardello-Petersen, Reed A C Siemieniuk, Dena Zeraatkar, Elie A Akl, Susan Armijo-Olivo, Dirk Bassler, Carrol Gamble, Lise Lotte Gluud, Jane Luise Hutton, Luz M Letelier, Philippe Ravaud, Kenneth F Schulz, David J Torgerson, Gordon H Guyatt","doi":"10.1136/bmj-2024-081199","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent innovations in evidence based medicine methods, in particular instruments assessing risk of bias in randomised trials, have focused on methodological rigour at the expense of simplicity and practicability. Such a focus could lead to challenges in application and loss of reliability of instruments. To deal with these shortcomings, the Risk Of Bias instrument for Use in SysTematic reviews-for Randomised Controlled Trials (ROBUST-RCT) was created—a rigorously developed, simply structured, and user friendly instrument for assessing risk of bias of randomised controlled trials included in systematic reviews. This paper describes the development of ROBUST-RCT and provides associated documents and a manual of instructions. Although systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials provide the best evidence for the effects of healthcare interventions,1 flaws in trial design and conduct may result in biased estimates of effects, and hence misleading conclusions.2 As a result, risk of bias assessment of randomised controlled trials has become an essential step in the systematic review process. Furthermore, risk of bias represents one domain in the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system of rating certainty of evidence, and trial limitations resulting in risk of bias may lead authors of systematic reviews to rate down the certainty of evidence.34 Although many instruments for assessing risk of bias in randomised controlled trials are available,5 most have important limitations. A systematic survey found that existing instruments often include items that do not deal with risk of bias.5 To be suitable for use in systematic reviews, risk of bias instruments should include only items that deal with risk of bias problems rather than other GRADE domains.3 The most popular and rigorously developed instruments include those offered by the Cochrane Collaboration. The first Cochrane risk of bias instrument6 included an “unclear” response option that …","PeriodicalId":22388,"journal":{"name":"The BMJ","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The BMJ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2024-081199","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent innovations in evidence based medicine methods, in particular instruments assessing risk of bias in randomised trials, have focused on methodological rigour at the expense of simplicity and practicability. Such a focus could lead to challenges in application and loss of reliability of instruments. To deal with these shortcomings, the Risk Of Bias instrument for Use in SysTematic reviews-for Randomised Controlled Trials (ROBUST-RCT) was created—a rigorously developed, simply structured, and user friendly instrument for assessing risk of bias of randomised controlled trials included in systematic reviews. This paper describes the development of ROBUST-RCT and provides associated documents and a manual of instructions. Although systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials provide the best evidence for the effects of healthcare interventions,1 flaws in trial design and conduct may result in biased estimates of effects, and hence misleading conclusions.2 As a result, risk of bias assessment of randomised controlled trials has become an essential step in the systematic review process. Furthermore, risk of bias represents one domain in the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system of rating certainty of evidence, and trial limitations resulting in risk of bias may lead authors of systematic reviews to rate down the certainty of evidence.34 Although many instruments for assessing risk of bias in randomised controlled trials are available,5 most have important limitations. A systematic survey found that existing instruments often include items that do not deal with risk of bias.5 To be suitable for use in systematic reviews, risk of bias instruments should include only items that deal with risk of bias problems rather than other GRADE domains.3 The most popular and rigorously developed instruments include those offered by the Cochrane Collaboration. The first Cochrane risk of bias instrument6 included an “unclear” response option that …
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
用于随机对照试验的系统评价的ROBUST-RCT:偏倚风险工具的开发
最近在循证医学方法方面的创新,特别是在随机试验中评估偏倚风险的工具方面,侧重于方法的严谨性,而牺牲了简单性和实用性。这样的焦点可能导致应用上的挑战和仪器可靠性的丧失。为了解决这些缺点,创建了用于随机对照试验的系统评价的偏倚风险工具(ROBUST-RCT),这是一种严格开发,结构简单,用户友好的工具,用于评估系统评价中随机对照试验的偏倚风险。本文描述了ROBUST-RCT的发展,并提供了相关文档和说明书。尽管对随机对照试验的系统评价为医疗干预的效果提供了最好的证据,但试验设计和实施中的缺陷可能导致对效果的估计有偏差,从而得出误导性的结论因此,随机对照试验的偏倚风险评估已成为系统评价过程中必不可少的一步。此外,偏倚风险代表了推荐、评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)系统中对证据确定性进行评级的一个领域,而导致偏倚风险的试验限制可能导致系统评价的作者降低证据的确定性虽然有许多评估随机对照试验偏倚风险的工具,但大多数都有重要的局限性。一项系统的调查发现,现有的文书往往包括不处理偏差风险的项目为了适合在系统评价中使用,偏倚风险工具应该只包括处理偏倚风险问题的项目,而不是其他GRADE领域最受欢迎和开发最严格的仪器包括Cochrane Collaboration提供的仪器。第一个Cochrane偏倚风险工具包括一个“不清楚”的反应选项,即……
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Strikes: Streeting threatens to withdraw extra training places if resident doctors walk out. Meta and Google are found liable for harm to child's mental health in landmark ruling. Chikungunya alert: UK cases reach 10 year high as travellers urged to protect themselves. British Palestinian doctor Rahmeh Aladwan is charged with supporting Hamas. Bird flu: First human case of H9N2 in Europe.
×
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:604180095
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