- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Inclusion of observational / non-randomised studies
- Risk of bias tools in systematic reviews of health interventions: an analysis of PROSPERO-registered protocols
Ref ID | 536 |
First Author | K. Farrah |
Journal | SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS |
Year Of Publishing | 2019 |
URL | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6857304/pdf/13643_2019_Article_1172.pdf |
Keywords |
Protocols Observational studies General medical |
Problem(s) |
Inclusion of observational / non-randomised studies |
Number of systematic reviews included | 471 |
Summary of Findings | 63% of the 471 included protocols planned to include non-randomised studies as well as randomised controlled trials. The choice of risk of bias tool in protocols that intended to include both randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies was more heterogeneous indicating lack of consensus on preferred tools for evaluating bias in non-randomised studies. |
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 |