Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: Cross sectional study

BMJ (Online)

Volumn 339, Issue 7728, 2009, Pages 1017-

  Hartling, Lisa ^a   Ospina, Maria ^a   Liang, Yuanyuan ^a   Dryden, Donna M ^a   Hooton, Nicola ^a   Seida, Jennifer Krebs ^a   Klassen, Terry P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHILD; COCHRANE LIBRARY; CONCURRENT VALIDITY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; INTERNAL BIAS; INTERNAL VALIDITY; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SCORING SYSTEM;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; OBSERVER VARIATION; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 70350529010     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17561833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b4012     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. Evidence report/technology assessment No 47. 2002. www.ahrq.gov/clinic/epcsums/strengthsum.htm.
2. Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA, Boers M, van den Brandt PA. The art of quality assessment of RCTs included in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2001;54:651-654 (Pubitemid 32594850)
3. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Guidelines for reading literature reviews. CMAJ 1988;138:697-703.
4. Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.0. Cochrane Collaboration, 2008.
5. Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001;323:42-46
6. Gluud LL. Bias in clinical intervention research. Am J Epidemiol 2006;163:493-501.
7. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273:408-412
8. Schulz KF. Assessing allocation concealment and blinding in randomised controlled trials: why bother? Evid Based Nurs 2001;4:4-6.
9. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 1998;352:609-613
10. Chalmers TC, Celano P, Sacks HS, Smith H Jr. Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. N Engl J Med 1983;309:1358-1361 (Pubitemid 14246558)
11. Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med 2001;135:982-989 (Pubitemid 33131619)
12. Balk EM, Bonis PA, Moskowitz H, Schmid CH, Ioannidis JP, Wang, C, et al. Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2002;287:2973-2982 (Pubitemid 34620001)
13. Katrak P, Bialocerkowski AE, Massy-Westropp N, Kumar VSS, Grimmer KA. A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools. BMC Med Res Methodol 2004;4:22. (Pubitemid 39532834)
14. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, Walsh S. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials 1995;16:62-73.
15. Jüni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 1999;282:1054-1060 (Pubitemid 29436453)
16. Chan A, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 2004;291:2457-2465 (Pubitemid 38669189)
17. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996;17:1-12.
18. Klassen TP, Wiebe N, Russell K, Stevens K, Hartling L, Craig WR, et al. Abstracts of randomized controlled trials presented at the Society for Pediatric Research meeting: an example of publication bias. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2002;156:474-479 (Pubitemid 34492580)
19. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-174
20. Cichetti DV, Allison T. A new procedure for assessing reliability of scoring EEG sleep recordings. Am J EEG Technol 1971;11:101-109
21. Moher D, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Tugwell P, Moher M, Jones A. Assessing the quality of reports of randomised trials: implications for the conduct of meta-analyses. Health Technol Assess 1999;3:1-98. (Pubitemid 29270516)
22. Hasselblad V, Hedges LV. Meta-analysis of screening and diagnostic tests. Psychol Bull 1995;117:167-178
23. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta analysis in clinical trials. Contr Clin Trials 1986;7:177-188
24. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557-560
25. Seigel DG, Podgor MJ, Remaley NA. Acceptable values of kappa for comparison of two groups. Am J Epidemiol 1992;135:571-578
26. Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, Schulz KF, Jüni P, Altman DG, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 2008;336:601-605
27. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D, for the CONSORT Group. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA 2001;285:1987-1991
28. Egger M, Jüni P, Bartlett C, Holenstein F, Sterne J. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Health Technol Assess 2003;7:1-76.
29. Als-Nielsen B, Chen W, Gluud L, Siersma V, Hilden J, Gluud C. Are trial size and reported methodological quality associated with treatment effects? Observational study of 523 randomised trials. [Abstract.] Canadian Cochrane Network and Centre, University of Ottawa, 2004. www.cochrane.org/colloquia/ abstracts/ottawa/P-003.htm.
30. Tierney JF, Stewart LA. Investigating patient exclusion bias in metaanalysis. Int J Epidemiol 2005;34:79-87.
31. Porta N, Bonet C, Cobo E. Discordance between reported intention-to-treat and per protocol analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60:663-669 (Pubitemid 46891765)
32. Chan AW, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 2004;291:2457-2465
33. Chan AW, Altman DG. Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors. BMJ 2005;330:753-756
34. Sterne JA, Jüni P, Schulz KF, Altman DG, Bartlett C, Egger M. Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in "meta-epidemiological" research. Stat Med 2002;21:1513-1524
35. Gluud LL, Thorlund K, Gluud C, Woods L, Harris R, Sterne JA. Correction: reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med 2008;149:219.