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