Risk of bias judgments for random sequence generation in Cochrane systematic reviews were frequently not in line with Cochrane Handbook

Ref ID 443
First Author O. Barcot
Journal BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Year Of Publishing 2019
URL https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6683577/pdf/12874_2019_Article_804.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 adequacy of judgments about risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) in Cochrane systematic reviews published between July 2015 to June 2016.
Level of Investigation Descriptive
Summary of Findings 26% of judgements regarding included trials for performance bias were not in line with the Cochrane Handbook and were therefore considered inadequate. Particularly high number of discrepancies when Cochrane authors judged the risk as low, mostly because Cochrane authors accepted statements such as ‘‘double blind’’ and ‘‘placebo’’ as sufficient proof for this domain.
Number of systematic reviews included 718
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 955