| 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 |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | France |
| Aim | To assess how risk of bias assessments of primary studies are carried out and incorporated into the statistical analysis and overall findings of systematic reviews of randomised trials published between January and March 2012; Cochrane (n=100), non-Cochrane (Database of Reviews of Effects) (n=100). |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| 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. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 200 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 281 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |