Incorporation of assessments of risk of bias of primary studies in systematic reviews of randomised trials: a cross-sectional study

Ref ID 125
First Author S. Hopewell
Journal BMJ OPEN
Year Of Publishing 2013
URL https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3753473/pdf/bmjopen-2013-003342.pdf
Keywords Cochrane
Risk of bias
General medical
Non-Cochrane reviews
Problem(s) Meta-analyses and forest plots presented without considering risk of bias / quality
Limited quality assessment or no risk of bias
Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review
Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews
Number of systematic reviews included 200
Summary of Findings Cochrane reviews routinely reported the method of risk of bias assessment and presented their results either in text or table format, however 20% of non- Cochrane reviews failed to report the method used and 39% did not present the assessment results. However, only 49% (n=40/81) of Cochrane and 20% (n=7/35) of non-Cochrane reviews incorporated the risk of bias assessment into the interpretation of the conclusions.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? No