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	• Non-Cochrane reviews • Cochrane • General medical • Risk of bias
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?	N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	No