- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Flawed risk of bias undertaken
- 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 |