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 Cochrane
Risk of bias
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? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? Yes