Cochrane's risk of bias tool for non-randomized studies (ROBINS-I) is frequently misapplied: A methodological systematic review

Ref ID 782
First Author E. Igelstrom
Journal JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Year Of Publishing 2021
URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435621002675
Keywords Observational studies
General medical
Low methodological quality
Problem(s) Inclusion of observational / non-randomised studies
Flawed risk of bias undertaken
Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
Number of systematic reviews included 93
Summary of Findings From 93 included systematic reviews indexed across Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews between January 01 2020 to March 02, 2020. Quality of reviews (AMSTAR-2) was mostly low, and modifications and incorrect use of ROBINS-I were common, with 20% reviews modifying the rating scale, 20% understating overall risk of bias, and 19% including critical-risk of bias studies in evidence synthesis. Poorly conducted reviews were more likely to report low/moderate risk of bias (predicted probability 57% [95% CI: 47–67] in critically low-quality reviews, 31% [19–46] in high/moderate-quality reviews).
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