Disagreements in risk of bias assessment for randomised controlled trials included in more than one Cochrane systematic reviews: a research on research study using cross-sectional design

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 Cochrane
Risk of bias
General medical
Problem(s) Flawed risk of bias undertaken
Number of systematic reviews included 797
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).
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