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