The judgement of biases included in the category “other bias” in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: a systematic survey

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
Number of systematic reviews included 768
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.
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