High risk of bias (ROBIS)

This problem is addressed by the ROBIS guideline. The results of systematic reviews with a high risk of bias should be interpreted with caution.

Articles that support this problem:

Risk of Bias and Quality of Reporting in Colon and Rectal Cancer Systematic Reviews Cited by National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines

2020 : Journal of general internal medicine

Reporting bias in the literature on the associations of health-related behaviors and statins with cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality

2018 : Plos biology

Risk of bias assessment of systematic reviews regarding dental implant placement in smokers: An umbrella systematic review

2018 : Journal of prosthetic dentistry

Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews of interventions aimed at improving vaccination coverage using AMSTAR and ROBIS checklists

2019 : Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics

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

2018 : Journal of clinical periodontology

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

2019 : Journal of periodontal research

Reliability of the evidence to guide decision-making in foot ulcer prevention in diabetes: an overview of systematic reviews

2022 : Bmc medical research methodology

Quality of systematic reviews on timing of complementary feeding for early childhood allergy prevention

2023 : Bmc medical research methodology

Acupuncture and Related Therapies for Chronic Urticaria: A Critical Overview of Systematic Reviews

2022 : Evidence-based complementary & alternative medicine: ecam