Flawed risk of bias undertaken

This problem is addressed in PRISMA 2020, AMSTAR 2, ROBIS and MECIR. Often, risk of bias assessments are undertaken in systematic reviews but in a perfunctory or invalid way.

Articles that support this problem:

Risk of bias assessments and reporting quality of systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials examining acupuncture for depression: An overview and meta‐epidemiology study

2020 : Journal of evidence‐based medicine

Association between risk-of-bias assessments and results of randomized trials in Cochrane reviews: the ROBES meta-epidemiologic study

2018 : American journal of epidemiology

Quality of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of surgical randomized clinical trials

2020 : Bjs open

Journal impact factor is associated with PRISMA endorsement, but not with the methodological quality of low back pain systematic reviews: a methodological review

2020 : European spine journal

Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Relating to Performance of All-Ceramic Implant Abutments, Frameworks, and Restorations

2021 : Journal of prosthodontics

Disagreements in risk of bias assessment for randomised controlled trials included in more than one Cochrane systematic reviews: a research on research study using cross-sectional design

2019 : Bmj open

Variable methodological quality and use found in systematic reviews referenced in STEMI clinical practice guidelines

2017 : The american journal of emergency medicine

The methodological quality of systematic reviews on the treatment of adult major depression needs improvement according to AMSTAR 2: A cross-sectional study

2020 : Heliyon

Risk of bias in Cochrane systematic reviews: assessments of risk related to attrition bias are highly inconsistent

2018 : Biorxiv

Methodological quality, completeness of reporting and use of systematic reviews as evidence in clinical practice guidelines for paediatric overweight and obesity

2017 : Clinical obesity

Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews of Non-Randomized Studies of Adverse Cardiovascular Effects of Thiazolidinediones and Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitors: Application of a New Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool

2016 : Plos medicine

Quality assessment of systematic reviews regarding the effectiveness of zygomatic implants: an overview of systematic reviews

2020 : Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal

Identifying the ‘incredible’! Part 2: Spot the difference-a rigorous risk of bias assessment can alter the main findings of a systematic review

2019 : British journal of sports medicine

Quality of Systematic Reviews of the Foods with Function Claims in Japan: Comparative Before- and After-Evaluation of Verification Reports by the Consumer Affairs Agency

2019 : Nutrients

There were large discrepancies in risk of bias tool judgments when a randomized controlled trial appeared in more than one systematic review

2017 : Journal of clinical epidemiology

Cochrane risk of bias tool was used inadequately in the majority of non-Cochrane systematic reviews

2020 : Journal of clinical epidemiology

Risk of bias assessments for selective reporting were inadequate in the majority of Cochrane reviews

2019 : Journal of clinical epidemiology

In Cochrane reviews, risk of bias assessments for allocation concealment were frequently not in line with Cochrane's Handbook guidance

2019 : Journal of clinical epidemiology

Overall bias methods and their use in sensitivity analysis of Cochrane reviews were not consistent

2019 : Journal of clinical epidemiology

Risk of bias assessments for blinding of participants and personnel in Cochrane reviews were frequently inadequate

2019 : Journal of clinical epidemiology

Inter-review agreement of risk-of-bias judgments varied in Cochrane reviews

2020 : Journal of clinical epidemiology

Appraisal of systematic reviews on the management of peri-implant diseases with two methodological tools

2018 : Journal of clinical periodontology

Assessments of attrition bias in Cochrane systematic reviews are highly inconsistent and thus hindering trial comparability

2019 : Bmc medical research methodology

Risk of bias judgments for random sequence generation in Cochrane systematic reviews were frequently not in line with Cochrane Handbook

2019 : Bmc medical research methodology

The judgement of biases included in the category “other bias” in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: a systematic survey

2019 : Bmc medical research methodology

Methodological quality of systematic reviews on interventions for osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional study

2020 : Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease

Methodological and reporting quality evaluation of systematic reviews on acupuncture in women with polycystic ovarian syndrome: A systematic review

2018 : Complementary therapies in clinical practice

Evaluation of the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized clinical trials: overview of published comments and analysis of user practice in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews

2016 : Systematic reviews

Rethinking the assessment of risk of bias due to selective reporting: a cross-sectional study

2016 : Systematic reviews

Methodological quality and risk-of-bias assessments in systematic reviews of treatments for peri-implantitis

2019 : Journal of periodontal research

Methodological quality and redundancy of systematic reviews that compare endarterectomy versus stenting for carotid stenosis

2019 : Bmj evidence-based medicine

Risk of bias assessment of sequence generation: a study of 100 systematic reviews of trials

2019 : Systematic reviews

Chinese herbal medicine for the treatment of primary hypertension: a methodology overview of systematic reviews

2016 : Systematic reviews

The quality check of a systematic review on the quality of randomized controlled trials from Saudi Arabia

2019 : Contemporary clinical trials communications

Assessing risk of bias judgments for blinding of outcome assessors in Cochrane reviews

2020 : Journal of comparative effectiveness research

External factors may influence Cochrane reviewers when classifying therisk of bias of original reports

2020 : Journal of clinical epidemiology

Lessons learnt on transparency, scientific process and publication ethics. The short story of a long journey to get into the public domain unpublished data, methodological flaws and bias of the Cochrane HPV vaccines review

2019 : Bmj evidence-based medicine

Cluster Randomised Trials in Cochrane Reviews: Evaluation of Methodological and Reporting Practice

2016 : Plos one

Quality Assessment Errors and Study Misclassification Threaten Systematic Review Validity: Community Opioid Overdose Prevention and Naloxone Distribution Programs Review

2015 : Journal of addiction medicine

Not all systematic reviews are created equal

2018 : Canadian journal of occupational therapy

The method quality of cross-over studies involved in Cochrane Systematic Reviews

2015 : Plos one

The Cochrane HPV vaccine review was incomplete and ignored important evidence of bias

2018 : Bmj evidence-based medicine

Opposing systematic reviews: the effects of two quality rating instruments on evidence regarding t'ai chi and bone mineral density in postmenopausal women

2011 : Journal of alternative & complementary medicine

Trust, but verify. The errors and misinterpretations in the Cochrane analysis by O. J. Storebo and colleagues on the efficacy and safety of methylphenidate for the treatment of children and adolescents with ADHD

2016 : Zeitschrift fur kinder-und jugendpsychiatrie und psychotherapie

Impact of quality scales on levels of evidence inferred from a systematic review of exercise therapy and low back pain

2002 : Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation

Compliance of systematic reviews in plastic surgery with the PRISMA statement

2016 : Jama facial plastic surgery

Extent and quality of systematic review evidence related to minimum intervention in dentistry: essential oils, powered toothbrushes, triclosan, xylitol

2011 : International dental journal

How do systematic reviews incorporate risk of bias assessments into the synthesis of evidence? A methodological study

2015 : J epidemiol community health

Reporting, handling and assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant data in systematic reviews: a methodological survey

2015 : Bmj open

A descriptive analysis of child-relevant systematic reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

2010 : Bmc pediatrics

Cochrane vertebroplasty review misrepresented evidence for vertebroplasty with early intervention in severely affected patients

2020 : Bmj evidence-based medicine

Systematic reviews of low back pain prognosis had variable methods and results: guidance for future prognosis reviews

2009 : Journal of clinical epidemiology

Inclusion of nonrandomized studies in Cochrane systematic reviews was found to be in need of improvement

2014 : Journal of clinical epidemiology

Adequacy of risk of bias assessment in surgical vs non-surgical trials in Cochrane reviews: a methodological study

2020 : Bmc medical research methodology

Cochrane's risk of bias tool for non-randomized studies (ROBINS-I) is frequently misapplied: A methodological systematic review

2021 : Journal of clinical epidemiology

Caution should be exercised when assessing ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 in systematic reviews

2022 : Reviews in medical virology

The Campbell Collaboration's systematic review of school-based anti-bullying interventions does not meet mandatory methodological standards

2022 : Systematic reviews

Letter to the Editor concerning "the influence of cognitive behavioral therapy on lumbar spine surgery outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis" by Parish JM, et al. (Eur Spine J [2021]; 30(5):1365-1379)

2022 : European spine journal

Systematic Review on Electronic Health Interventions for Patients With Breast Cancer: Revisiting the Methodology

2023 : Journal of clinical oncology

Most Cochrane systematic reviews and protocols did not adhere to the Cochrane's risk of bias 2.0 tool

2023 : Revista da associacao medica brasileira