| Ref ID | 442 |
| First Author | A. Babic |
| Journal | BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2019 |
| URL | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6458756/pdf/12874_2019_Article_718.pdf |
| Keywords |
• Cochrane • Risk of bias • General medical |
| Problem(s) |
• 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 |
| Checklists |
• Cochrane Risk of Bias |
| Aim | To assess the types of bias and their corresponding judgements noted in the ‘other bias’ domain of Cochrane risk of bias tool Cochrane reviews of randomized controlled trials published between July 2015 to June 2016. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | Insufficient and unclear reporting of the ‘other bias’ domain was very common in the Cochrane reviews analysed. 78% of included Cochrane reviews used the ‘other bias’ domain in the risk of bias assessment. The judgments of the same supporting explanations were highly inconsistent and were grouped into 31 types. There were numerous other inconsistencies in reporting of sources of other bias in Cochrane reviews. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 768 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 955 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |