使用RoB 2工具成功评估随机试验偏倚风险的十个提示:来自Cochrane的早期经验

Theresa H. M. Moore, Julian P. T. Higgins, Kerry Dwan
{"title":"使用RoB 2工具成功评估随机试验偏倚风险的十个提示:来自Cochrane的早期经验","authors":"Theresa H. M. Moore,&nbsp;Julian P. T. Higgins,&nbsp;Kerry Dwan","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>RoB 2 is a tool used by systematic reviewers to assess risk of bias in randomized trials. Over a period of 19 months working as editors for Cochrane, we saw many instances where users of RoB 2 frequently applied the tool in ways the developers had not intended, despite availability of detailed guidance, webinars and FAQs.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>In this paper we highlight the ten main issues that we observed, with the aims of optimising the application of the RoB 2 tool, avoiding some of the frequent misapplications of the tool.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Issues noted included failure to state an effect of interest, applying the tool to an entire study rather than to a specific numerical result, omitting key signaling questions and relying on outdated views of causes of bias.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Such omissions and misapplications can lead to overly harsh or lenient assessments of bias with potential to change the confidence we have in an evidence base of randomized trials. We recommend that teams planning to use RoB 2 include at least one member familiar with the RoB 2 detailed guidance and that they use the free resources, such as webinars and FAQs, from the developers of RoB 2 and Cochrane. Our ten tips should be useful to non-Cochrane systematic reviewers as well as to peer reviewers and editors in Cochrane and other journals.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12031","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ten tips for successful assessment of risk of bias in randomized trials using the RoB 2 tool: Early lessons from Cochrane\",\"authors\":\"Theresa H. M. Moore,&nbsp;Julian P. T. Higgins,&nbsp;Kerry Dwan\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/cesm.12031\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>RoB 2 is a tool used by systematic reviewers to assess risk of bias in randomized trials. Over a period of 19 months working as editors for Cochrane, we saw many instances where users of RoB 2 frequently applied the tool in ways the developers had not intended, despite availability of detailed guidance, webinars and FAQs.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>In this paper we highlight the ten main issues that we observed, with the aims of optimising the application of the RoB 2 tool, avoiding some of the frequent misapplications of the tool.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Issues noted included failure to state an effect of interest, applying the tool to an entire study rather than to a specific numerical result, omitting key signaling questions and relying on outdated views of causes of bias.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Such omissions and misapplications can lead to overly harsh or lenient assessments of bias with potential to change the confidence we have in an evidence base of randomized trials. We recommend that teams planning to use RoB 2 include at least one member familiar with the RoB 2 detailed guidance and that they use the free resources, such as webinars and FAQs, from the developers of RoB 2 and Cochrane. Our ten tips should be useful to non-Cochrane systematic reviewers as well as to peer reviewers and editors in Cochrane and other journals.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100286,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods\",\"volume\":\"1 10\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12031\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cesm.12031\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cesm.12031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

RoB 2是系统审稿人用来评估随机试验偏倚风险的工具。在作为Cochrane编辑的19个月里,我们看到很多例子,RoB 2的用户经常以开发者意想不到的方式使用该工具,尽管有详细的指导、网络研讨会和常见问题解答。在本文中,我们强调了我们观察到的十个主要问题,目的是优化罗布2工具的应用,避免工具的一些频繁误用。注意到的问题包括未能说明感兴趣的影响,将工具应用于整个研究而不是特定的数字结果,忽略关键的信号问题以及依赖于过时的偏见原因观点。这样的遗漏和误用可能导致过于苛刻或宽松的偏倚评估,有可能改变我们对随机试验证据基础的信心。我们建议计划使用RoB 2的团队包括至少一名熟悉RoB 2详细指导的成员,并且他们使用RoB 2和Cochrane开发人员提供的免费资源,例如网络研讨会和faq。我们的十条建议应该对非Cochrane系统审稿人以及Cochrane和其他期刊的同行审稿人和编辑有用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Ten tips for successful assessment of risk of bias in randomized trials using the RoB 2 tool: Early lessons from Cochrane

Introduction

RoB 2 is a tool used by systematic reviewers to assess risk of bias in randomized trials. Over a period of 19 months working as editors for Cochrane, we saw many instances where users of RoB 2 frequently applied the tool in ways the developers had not intended, despite availability of detailed guidance, webinars and FAQs.

Methods

In this paper we highlight the ten main issues that we observed, with the aims of optimising the application of the RoB 2 tool, avoiding some of the frequent misapplications of the tool.

Results

Issues noted included failure to state an effect of interest, applying the tool to an entire study rather than to a specific numerical result, omitting key signaling questions and relying on outdated views of causes of bias.

Conclusion

Such omissions and misapplications can lead to overly harsh or lenient assessments of bias with potential to change the confidence we have in an evidence base of randomized trials. We recommend that teams planning to use RoB 2 include at least one member familiar with the RoB 2 detailed guidance and that they use the free resources, such as webinars and FAQs, from the developers of RoB 2 and Cochrane. Our ten tips should be useful to non-Cochrane systematic reviewers as well as to peer reviewers and editors in Cochrane and other journals.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Methodological and reporting quality of systematic and rapid reviews on human mpox and their utility during a public health emergency Issue Information “Interest-holders”: A new term to replace “stakeholders” in the context of health research and policy Empowering the future of evidence-based healthcare: The Cochrane Early Career Professionals Network Issue Information
×
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