| 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 |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Croatia |
| Aim | To assess methods of assessing ‘‘overall bias’’ in Cochrane reviews of interventions published from July 2015 to June 2018 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and to assess sensitivity analyses related to overall risk of bias. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| 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. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 1452 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 1452 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |