Identifying the ‘incredible’! Part 2: Spot the difference-a rigorous risk of bias assessment can alter the main findings of a systematic review

Ref ID 258
First Author F. Büttner
Journal BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
Year Of Publishing 2019
URL https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31871014/
Keywords Risk of bias
Physiotherapy
Problem(s) Flawed risk of bias undertaken
Limited quality assessment or no risk of bias
Number of systematic reviews included 66
Summary of Findings Conclusions about trial quality present differently depending on the choice of checklist. Almost all (98%) of included systematic review performed quality assessment but risk of bias assessments were infrequently performed. 35% of reviews used a modified or adapted tool. Systematic reviews were simultaneously found to be of high quality and yet of high risk of bias in 9 cases. The authors highlight that modified tools should not be used. A worked example in one systematic review found that the majority of trials in one systematic review were judged to be of high quality according to Downs & Black checklist but using the RoB2 tool, they were also judged to be at 'high overall risk of bias.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? Yes
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? No