| 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 |
• Observational studies • General medical • Protocols |
| Problem(s) |
• Inclusion of observational / non-randomised studies |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Canada |
| Aim | To assess the planned use of risk of bias tools in systematic reviews of health interventions, specifically for reviews that planned to incorporate evidence from randomised controlled trials and/or non-randomised studies. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| 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. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 471 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 500 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |