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":"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。","authors":"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","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":"{\"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, 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\",\"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}","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
摘要
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。
Frequency of use and adequacy of Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 in non-Cochrane systematic reviews published in 2020: Meta-research study
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.
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.