- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Flawed risk of bias undertaken
- Association between risk-of-bias assessments and results of randomized trials in Cochrane reviews: the ROBES meta-epidemiologic study
| Ref ID | 55 |
| First Author | J. Savović |
| Journal | AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2018 |
| URL | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29126260/ |
| Keywords |
Cochrane Author Risk of bias General medical |
| Problem(s) |
Flawed risk of bias undertaken |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 228 |
| Summary of Findings | Bayesian analysis of 228 Cochrane meta-analyses found that intervention effect estimates were, on average, exaggerated in trials with high or unclear (versus low) risk-of-bias judgements for sequence generation (ratio of odds ratios (ROR) = 0.91, 95% credible interval (CrI): 0.86, 0.98), allocation concealment (ROR = 0.92, 95% CrI: 0.86, 0.98), and blinding (ROR = 0.87, 95%CrI: 0.80, 0.93). There was no consistently different bias for subjective outcomes compared with mortality. However, there was an increase in between-trial heterogeneity associated with lack of blinding in meta-analyses with subjective outcomes. Inconsistency in criteria for risk-of-bias judgements applied by individual reviewers is a likely limitation of routinely collected bias assessments. Inadequate randomization and lack of blinding may lead to exaggeration of intervention effect estimates in randomized trials. |
| Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | Yes |
| Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | No |