- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Flawed risk of bias undertaken
- 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 |