加强研究质量评估:荟萃分析中偏倚风险工具的深入综述——麻醉师的综合指南。

Alessandro De Cassai, Annalisa Boscolo, Francesco Zarantonello, Tommaso Pettenuzzo, Nicolò Sella, Federico Geraldini, Marina Munari, Paolo Navalesi
{"title":"加强研究质量评估:荟萃分析中偏倚风险工具的深入综述——麻醉师的综合指南。","authors":"Alessandro De Cassai, Annalisa Boscolo, Francesco Zarantonello, Tommaso Pettenuzzo, Nicolò Sella, Federico Geraldini, Marina Munari, Paolo Navalesi","doi":"10.1186/s44158-023-00129-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Yearly, a multitude of randomized controlled trials are published, overwhelming clinicians with conflicting information; this data saturation leads to confusion and hinders clinicians' everyday decision-making. Hence, it is crucial to assess the quality and reliability of the evidence in order to consolidate it. Through this synthesis, clinicians can guarantee that their decisions are informed by solid evidence. Meta-analysis, a statistical technique, can effectively combine data from multiple studies to furnish accurate and dependable evidence for clinical practice and policy decisions. Nonetheless, the reliability of the obtained results depends on the use of high-quality evidence.</p><p><strong>Main body: </strong>Risk of bias is an assessment mandatory while performing a meta-analysis and is used to have an overview of the quality of the studies from which data are extracted. Several tools have been developed and are used to perform the risk of bias assessment. In this statistical round, we will provide an overview of the most used tools for both the randomized (Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 and Jadad) and the nonrandomized (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) clinical trials.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We provided an overview of the most used risk of bias tools used in meta-analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":73597,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care (Online)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10626791/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Enhancing study quality assessment: an in-depth review of risk of bias tools for meta-analysis-a comprehensive guide for anesthesiologists.\",\"authors\":\"Alessandro De Cassai, Annalisa Boscolo, Francesco Zarantonello, Tommaso Pettenuzzo, Nicolò Sella, Federico Geraldini, Marina Munari, Paolo Navalesi\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s44158-023-00129-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Yearly, a multitude of randomized controlled trials are published, overwhelming clinicians with conflicting information; this data saturation leads to confusion and hinders clinicians' everyday decision-making. Hence, it is crucial to assess the quality and reliability of the evidence in order to consolidate it. Through this synthesis, clinicians can guarantee that their decisions are informed by solid evidence. Meta-analysis, a statistical technique, can effectively combine data from multiple studies to furnish accurate and dependable evidence for clinical practice and policy decisions. Nonetheless, the reliability of the obtained results depends on the use of high-quality evidence.</p><p><strong>Main body: </strong>Risk of bias is an assessment mandatory while performing a meta-analysis and is used to have an overview of the quality of the studies from which data are extracted. Several tools have been developed and are used to perform the risk of bias assessment. In this statistical round, we will provide an overview of the most used tools for both the randomized (Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 and Jadad) and the nonrandomized (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) clinical trials.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We provided an overview of the most used risk of bias tools used in meta-analysis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73597,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care (Online)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10626791/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care (Online)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s44158-023-00129-z\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care (Online)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s44158-023-00129-z","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

背景:每年都有大量的随机对照试验发表,临床医生收到了大量相互矛盾的信息;这种数据饱和会导致混乱,阻碍临床医生的日常决策。因此,评估证据的质量和可靠性以巩固证据至关重要。通过这种综合,临床医生可以保证他们的决定是由确凿的证据做出的。荟萃分析是一种统计技术,可以有效地结合多项研究的数据,为临床实践和政策决策提供准确可靠的证据。尽管如此,所获得结果的可靠性取决于高质量证据的使用。主体:偏倚风险是进行荟萃分析时必须进行的评估,用于对提取数据的研究质量进行概述。已经开发了几种工具,用于进行偏差风险评估。在这一轮统计中,我们将概述随机(Cochrane偏倚风险2和Jadad)和非随机(非随机研究中的偏倚风险和Newcastle Ottawa量表)临床试验中最常用的工具。结论:我们概述了荟萃分析中最常用的偏倚风险工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Enhancing study quality assessment: an in-depth review of risk of bias tools for meta-analysis-a comprehensive guide for anesthesiologists.

Background: Yearly, a multitude of randomized controlled trials are published, overwhelming clinicians with conflicting information; this data saturation leads to confusion and hinders clinicians' everyday decision-making. Hence, it is crucial to assess the quality and reliability of the evidence in order to consolidate it. Through this synthesis, clinicians can guarantee that their decisions are informed by solid evidence. Meta-analysis, a statistical technique, can effectively combine data from multiple studies to furnish accurate and dependable evidence for clinical practice and policy decisions. Nonetheless, the reliability of the obtained results depends on the use of high-quality evidence.

Main body: Risk of bias is an assessment mandatory while performing a meta-analysis and is used to have an overview of the quality of the studies from which data are extracted. Several tools have been developed and are used to perform the risk of bias assessment. In this statistical round, we will provide an overview of the most used tools for both the randomized (Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 and Jadad) and the nonrandomized (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) clinical trials.

Conclusion: We provided an overview of the most used risk of bias tools used in meta-analysis.

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
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Opioid system and related ligands: from the past to future perspectives. Abstracts of the ICARE 2024 78th SIAARTI National Congress. Lung ultrasound assessment of atelectasis following different anesthesia induction techniques in pediatric patients: a propensity score-matched, observational study. Management of analgosedation during noninvasive respiratory support: an expert Delphi consensus document developed by the Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI). Neuropathic pain, antidepressant drugs, and inflammation: a narrative review.
×
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