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
Number of systematic reviews included 718
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.
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