| Ref ID | 126 |
| First Author | L. Bertizzolo |
| Journal | BMJ OPEN |
| Year Of Publishing | 2019 |
| URL | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6500379/pdf/bmjopen-2018-028382.pdf |
| Keywords |
• General medical • Cochrane • Risk of bias |
| Problem(s) |
• Flawed risk of bias undertaken |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | France |
| Aim | To assess the frequency and reasons for disagreements in risk of bias assessments for randomised controlled trials included in more than one Cochrane review from a sample published between March 2011 and September 2014. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | From 797 included Cochrane reviews,1604 RCTs were included in more than one review. Proportion of agreement ranged from 57% (770/1348 trials) for incomplete outcome data to 81% for random sequence generation (1193/1466). Most common source of disagreement was difference in interpretation of the same information, ranging from 65% (88/136) for random sequence generation to 90% (56/62) for blinding of participants and personnel. Access to different information explained 32/136 (24%) disagreements for random sequence generation and 38/205 (19%) for allocation concealment. Disagreements related to difference in interpretation were frequently related to incomplete or unclear reporting in the study report (83% of disagreements related to different interpretation for random sequence generation). |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 797 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 2796 |