Quantifying bias in randomized controlled trials in child health: A meta-epidemiological study

PLoS ONE

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2014, Pages

  Hartling, Lisa ^a   Hamm, Michele P ^a   Fernandes, Ricardo M ^b,c   Dryden, Donna M ^a   Vandermeer, Ben ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b INSTITUTO DE MEDICINA MOLECULAR   (Portugal)

^c HOSPITAL DE SANTA MARIA   (Portugal)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHILD HEALTH; COCHRANE LIBRARY; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS; META EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PARALLEL DESIGN; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); STUDY DESIGN; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CHILD; CHILD WELFARE; EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RISK;

EID: 84895135024     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088008     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Schulz KF, Grimes DA (2002) Generation of allocation sequences in randomised trials: chance, not choice. Lancet 359: 515-519. (Pubitemid 34164304)
2. Sterne JA, Juni P, Schulz KF, Altman DG, Bartlett C, et al. (2002) Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in 'meta-epidemiological' research. Stat Med 21: 1513-1524. (Pubitemid 34746060)
3. Higgins JPT, Green S (2008) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.0 [updated February 2008]. The Cochrane Collaboration.
4. Balk EM, Bonis PA, Moskowitz H, Schmid CH, Ioannidis JP, et al. (2002) Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 287: 2973-2982. (Pubitemid 34620001)
5. Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, Holenstein F, Sterne J (2003) How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess 7: 1-76.
6. Klassen TP, Hartling L, Hamm M, van der Lee JH, Ursum J, et al. (2009) StaR Child Health: an initiative for RCTs in children. Lancet 374: 1310-1312.
7. Klassen TP, Hartling L, Craig JC, Offringa M (2008) Children are not just small adults: the urgent need for high-quality trial evidence in children. PLoS Med 5: e172.
8. Bow S, Klassen J, Chisholm A, Tjosvold L, Thomson D, et al. (2010) A descriptive analysis of child-relevant systematic reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. BMC Pediatr;10: 34.
9. Moseley AM, Elkins MR, Herbert RD, Maher CG, Sherrington C (2009) Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-Cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy. J Clin Epidemiol 62: 1021-1030.
10. Tricco AC, Tetzlaff J, Pham B, Brehaut J, Moher D (2009) Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane reviews were twice as likely to have positive conclusion statements: cross-sectional study. J Clin Epidemiol 62: 380-386.
11. Sheikh L, Johnston S, Thangaratinam S, Kilby MD, Khan KS (2007) A review of the methodological features of systematic reviews in maternal medicine. BMC Med 5: 10.
12. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG (2007) Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 4: e78.
13. Collier A, Heilig L, Schilling L, Williams H, Dellavalle RP (2006) Cochrane Skin Group systematic reviews are more methodologically rigorous than other systematic reviews in dermatology. Br J Dermatol 155: 1230-1235. (Pubitemid 44730000)
14. Clarke M (2002) Commentary: searching for trials for systematic reviews: what difference does it make? Int J Epidemiol 31: 123-124.
15. Pildal J, Hrobjartsson A, Jorgensen KJ, Hilden J, Altman DG, et al (2007) Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials. Int J Epidemiol 36: 847-857. (Pubitemid 47394153)
16. Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C (2001) Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med 135: 982-989. (Pubitemid 33131619)
17. Siersma V, Is-Nielsen B, Chen W, Hilden J, Gluud LL, et al. (2007) Multivariable modelling for meta-epidemiological assessment of the association between trial quality and treatment effects estimated in randomized clinical trials. Stat Med 26: 2745-2758.
18. Hartling L, Ospina M, Liang Y, Dryden DM, Hooton N, et al. (2009) Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study. BMJ 339: b4012.
19. Hamm MP, Hartling L, Milne A, Tjosvold L, Vandermeer B, et al. (2010) A descriptive analysis of a representative sample of pediatric randomized controlled trials published in 2007. BMC Pediatr 10: 96.
20. Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, Schulz KF, Juni P, et al. (2008) Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 336: 601-605. (Pubitemid 351439518)
21. Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG (2004) Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 291: 2457-2465. (Pubitemid 38669189)
22. Chan AW, Altman DG (2005) Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors. BMJ 330: 753.
23. Juni P, Nuesch E, Reichenbach S, Rutjes A, Scherrer M, et al. (2008) Overestimation of treatment effects associated with small sample size in osteoarthritis research. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 102: 62.
24. Lachin JM (1988) Properties of simple randomization in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 9: 312-326.
25. Hasselblad V, Hedges LV (1995) Meta-analysis of screening and diagnostic tests. Psychol Bull 117: 167-178.
26. Savovic J, Jones H, Altman D, Harris R, Juni P, et al. (2012) Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomised controlled trials: combined analysis of meta-epidemiological studies. Health Technol Assess 16: 1-82.
27. Furukawa TA, Watanabe N, Omori IM, Montori VM, Guyatt GH (2007) Association between unreported outcomes and effect size estimates in Cochrane meta-analyses. JAMA 297: 468-470. (Pubitemid 46220797)
28. Marshall M, Lockwood A, Bradley C, Adams C, Joy C, et al. (2000) Unpublished rating scales: a major source of bias in randomised controlled trials of treatments for schizophrenia. Br J Psychiatry 176: 249-252. (Pubitemid 30179844)
29. McDonagh M, Peterson K, Raina P, Chang S, Shekelle P (2013) Avoiding bias in selecting studies. Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. AHRQ Publication No. 13-EHC045-EF. Rockville, MD. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
30. Savovic J, Jones HE, Altman DG, Harris RJ, Juni P, et al. (2012) Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med 157: 429-38.
31. Hartling L, Hamm MP, Milne A, Vandermeer B, Santaguida PL, et al. (2013) Testing the risk of bias tool showed low reliability between individual reviewers and across consensus assessments of reviewer pairs. J Clin Epidemiol 66: 973-81.
32. Hartling L, Hamm M, Klassen T, Chan AW, Meremikwu M, et al. (2012) Standard 2: containing risk of bias. Pediatrics 129 Suppl 3: S124-S131.