- Framework of problems / Rigorous
- Flawed risk of bias undertaken
- Overall bias methods and their use in sensitivity analysis of Cochrane reviews were not consistent
| Ref ID | 345 |
| First Author | A. Babic |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2019 |
| URL | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0895435619308145 |
| Keywords |
• Risk of bias • Cochrane • General medical |
| Problem(s) |
• Meta-analyses and forest plots presented without considering risk of bias / quality • Flawed risk of bias undertaken • Weaknesses identified in some Cochrane reviews |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 1452 |
| Summary of Findings | 28% of included Cochrane reviews mentioned assessment of overall risk of bias at study level. In 26% of reviews, authors clearly specified key domains that determined the overall risk of bias, whereas in the remaining reviews, assessment of overall bias was not in line with the Cochrane Handbook. Among 28% of Cochrane reviews that had any risk of bias-related sensitivity analysis, in 21% of reviews, the authors reported a significant change for at least one outcome compared with the initial analysis. |
| Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | N/A |
| Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | Yes |