| Ref ID | 888 |
| First Author | A.L.C. Martimbianco |
| Journal | REVISTA DA ASSOCIACAO MEDICA BRASILEIRA |
| Year Of Publishing | 2023 |
| URL | https://www.scielo.br/j/ramb/a/6nPfxcVCjtRB9c3ygbm8LxC/?lang=en |
| Keywords |
• Risk of bias • General medical • Cochrane |
| Problem(s) |
• Weaknesses identified in some Cochrane reviews • Flawed risk of bias undertaken • Undocumented or unjustified deviations to the review protocol |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Brazil |
| Aim | The aim of this study was to identify the frequency of Cochrane systematic reviews and Cochrane systematic reviews protocols using (or planning to use) the risk of bias 2.0 tool (RoB 2.0) to assess the risk of bias of the included randomized clinical trials. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | From 440 Cochrane systematic reviews and 536 Cochrane review protocols published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews between January 2019 and March 2022. Overall, 4.8% (21/440) of the Cochrane Systematic Reviews (CSR) and 28.5% (153/536) of the CSR protocols used or planned to use the risk of bias 2.0 tool. A total of 274 (62.1%) CSRs had their protocols published prior to the introduction of RoB 2.0 (2018), but only one review used RoB 2.0 to assess the risk of bias of included RCTs and also reported the change of versions in the “Differences between protocol and revision” section. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 440 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 976 |