Blinded versus unblinded assessments of risk of bias in studies included in a systematic review

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Volumn 2011, Issue 9, 2011, Pages

  Morissette, Kate ^a   Tricco, Andrea C ^b   Horsley, Tanya ^c   Chen, Maggie H ^d   Moher, David ^e  

^a HEALTH CANADA   (Canada)

^b ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^c Centre for Learning in Practice   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^e OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CINAHL; CONTROLLED STUDY; EMBASE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE; MEDLINE; META ANALYSIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; UNCERTAINTY; LITERATURE; PUBLISHING;

PUBLICATION BIAS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 80055087878     PISSN: 14651858     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000025.pub2     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Bèrard A, Andreu N, Tètrault J, Niyonsenga T, Myhal D. Reliability of Chalmers' scale to assess quality in meta-analyses on pharmacological treatments for osteoporosis. Annals of Epidemiology 2000;10(8):498-503.
2. Berlin JA for the University of Pennsylvania Meta-analysis Blinding Study Group. Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses?. Lancet 1997;350(9072):185-6.
3. Clark HD, Wells GA, Huït C, McAlister FA, Salmi LR, Fergusson D, et al. Assessing the quality of randomized trials: reliability of the Jadad scale. Controlled Clinical Trials 1999;20(5):448-52.
4. 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?. Controlled Clinical Trials 1996;17(1):1-12.
5. 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(9128):609-13.
6. Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA, Kessels AG, Boers M, Knipschild PG. Balneotherapy and quality assessment: interobserver reliability of the Maastricht criteria list and the need for blinded quality assessment. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1998;51(4):335-41.
7. van Tulder MW, Scholten RJPM, Koes BM, Bouter LM. Blinded assessment of the methodological quality. Cochrane Colloquium, Poster 266 1997.
8. Assendelft WJ, Scholten RJ, Van Eijk JT, Bouter LM. The practice of systematic reviews. III. Evaluation of methodological quality of research studies. Nederlands Tijdschrift Geneeskunde 1999;143(14):714-9.
9. Chalmers TC, Smith H, Blackburn B, Silverman B, Schroeder B, Reitman D, et al. A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Controlled Clinical Trials 1981;2(1):31-49.
10. Ellis PD. The Essential Guide to Effect Sizes: An Introduction to Statistical Power, Meta-Analysis and the Interpretation of Research Results. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
11. Hartling L, Ospina M, Liang Y, Dryden DM, Hooton N, Krebs Seida J, et al. Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study. BMJ 2009;339:b4012.
12. Herbison P, Hay-Smith J, Gillespie WJ. Adjustment of meta-analyses on the basis of quality scores should be abandoned. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2006;59(12):1249-56.
13. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.2 [updated September 2009], The Cochrane Collaboration, 2009. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
14. Jüni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 1999;282(11):1054-60.
15. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159e74.
16. Moher D, Jadad AR, Tugwell P. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials. Current issues and future directions. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1996;12(2):195-208.
17. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 2007;4(3):e78.
18. Plint AC, Moher D, Morrison A, Schulz K, Altman DG, Hill C, et al. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Medical Journal of Australia 2006;185(5):263-7.
19. Sanderson S, Tatt ID, Higgins JPT. Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. International Journal of Epidemiology 2007;36:666-76.
20. Tricco AC, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, Fergusson D, Cogo E, Horsley T, et al. Few systematic reviews exist documenting the extent of bias: a systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2008;61(5):422-34.
21. Wen J, Ren Y, Wang L, Li Y, Liu Y, Zhou M, et al. The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: a random sampling study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2008;61(8):770-5.
22. West S, King V, Carey TS, Lohr KN, McKoy N, Sutton SF, et al. Systems to Rate the Strength of Scientific Evidence. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 47 (Prepared by the Research Triangle Institute-University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-97-0011) 2002; Vol. AHRQ Publication No.02-E016 2002.