Incorporation of assessments of risk of bias of primary studies in systematic reviews of randomised trials: A cross-sectional study

BMJ Open

Volumn 3, Issue 8, 2013, Pages

  Hopewell, Sally ^a,b,c,d,e   Boutron, Isabelle ^a,b,c,d   Altman, Douglas G ^e   Ravaud, Philippe ^a,b,c,d  

^a INSERM   (France)

^b HÔTEL DIEU   (France)

^c UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DESCARTES   (France)

^d French Cochrane Center France   (France)

^e UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CARDIOLOGY; CHECKLIST; CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY; COCHRANE LIBRARY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; ENDOCRINOLOGY; EQUIPMENT; GENERAL SURGERY; GYNECOLOGY; INFECTION; LIFESTYLE MODIFICATION; MEDLINE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASE; NEUROLOGY; OBSTETRICS; ONCOLOGY; PATIENT COUNSELING; PHARMACEUTICAL CARE; PSYCHIATRY; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); VALIDITY;

EID: 84884562493     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003342     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Pildal J, Hrobjartsson A, Jorgensen KJ, et al. Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials. IntJ Epidemiol 2007;36:847-57. (Pubitemid 47394153)
2. Savovic J, Jones HE, Altman DG, et al. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med 2012.
3. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. The Lancet hadbook of essential concepts in clincalresearch. London: Elsevier 2006.
4. Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS ONE 2008;3:e30-81.
5. Boutron I, Ravaud P. Classification systems to improve assessment of risk of bias. J Clin Epidemiol 2012;65:236-8.
6. Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews. AHRQ Publication No 10 (12)-EHC063-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2012. http://www.effectivehealthcare.hrq.gov.
7. Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, et al. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 1999;282:1054-60. (Pubitemid 29436453)
8. Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001;323:42-6. (Pubitemid 32682008)
9. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009;339:b2535.
10. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:W65-94.
11. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336:924-6. (Pubitemid 351632017)
12. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence-study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:407-15.
13. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928.
14. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996;17:1-12. (Pubitemid 26120810)
15. Lundh A, Gotzsche PC. Recommendations by Cochrane Review Groups for assessment of the risk of bias in studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008;8:22.
16. Higgins JP, Altman DG. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S. eds Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org and http://www.cochrane-handbook.org
17. Moja LP, Telaro E, D'Amico R, et al. Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study. BMJ 2005;330:1053.
18. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up?. PLoS Med 2010;7:e1000326.
19. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 2007;4:e78.
20. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA 1998;280:278-80. (Pubitemid 28493907)