How do systematic reviews incorporate risk of bias assessments into the synthesis of evidence? A methodological study

Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

Volumn 69, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 189-195

  Katikireddi, Srinivasa Vittal ^a   Egan, Matt ^b   Petticrew, Mark ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^b LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DESIGN; LITERATURE REVIEW; PUBLIC HEALTH; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; PROCEDURES; RISK ASSESSMENT; STANDARDS; STATISTICAL BIAS;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84922666403     PISSN: 0143005X     EISSN: 14702738     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jech-2014-204711     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Evidence-based medicine: a new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA 1992;268:2420-5.
2. Petticrew M, Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2009.
3. Helfand M, Balshem H. AHRQ series paper 2: principles for developing guidance: AHRQ and the Effective Health-Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63: 484-90.
4. Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011.
5. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, et al. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273:408-12.
6. Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 2008;336:601-5.
7. Balk EM, Bonis PA, Moskowitz H, et al. Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2002;287:2973-82.
8. Norris SL, Atkins D, Bruening W, et al. Observational studies in systemic reviews of comparative effectiveness: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:1178-86.
9. NICE. The guidelines manual. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2009.
10. Rychetnik L, Frommer M, Hawe P, et al. Criteria for evaluating evidence on public health interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 2002;56:119-27.
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.
12. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. What is "quality of evidence" and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ 2008;336:995-8.
13. 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.
14. 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. Int J Epidemiol 2007;36:666-76.
15. Armijo-Olivo S, Stiles CR, Hagen NA, et al. Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool: methodological research. J Eval Clin Pract 2012;18:12-18.
16. Katrak P, Bialocerkowski A, Massy-Westropp N, et al. A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools. BMC Med Res Methodol 2004;4:22.
17. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, et al. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials 1995;16:62-73.
18. Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med 2001;135:982-9.
19. Jüni P, Witschi A, Bloch R. THe hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 1999;282:1054-60.
20. Ogilvie D, Egan M, Hamilton V, et al. Systematic reviews of health effects of social interventions: 2. Best available evidence: how low should you go? J Epidemiol Community Health 2005;59:886-92.
21. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al.; Cochrane Bias Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928.
22. Collier A, Heilig L, Schilling L, et al. Cochrane Skin Group systematic reviews are more methodologically rigorous than other systematic reviews in dermatology. Br J Dermatol 2006;155:1230-5.
23. Moseley AM, Elkins MR, Herbert RD, et al. Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-Cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:1021-30.
24. Elm Ev, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ 2007;335:806-8.
25. Escalante Y, Saavedra JM, García-Hermoso A, et al. Improvement of the lipid profile with exercise in obese children: a systematic review. Prev Med 2012;54:293-301.
26. Fink HA, Ishani A, Taylor BC, et al. Screening for, monitoring, and treatment of chronic kidney disease stages 1 to 3: a systematic review for the U.S. preventive services task force and for an American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline. Ann Intern Med 2012;156:570-81.
27. Bruijning-Verhagen P, Quach C, Bonten M. Nosocomial rotavirus infections: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics 2012;129:e1011-19.
28. Voss PH, Rehfuess EA. Quality appraisal in systematic reviews of public health interventions: an empirical study on the impact of choice of tool on meta-analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health 2013;67:98-104.
29. Hartling L, Ospina M, Liang Y, et al. Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study. BMJ 2009;339:b4012.
30. de Craen AJM, van Vliet HAAM, Helmerhorst FM. An analysis of systematic reviews indicated low incorpororation of results from clinical trial quality assessment. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:311-13.
31. Hopewell S, Boutron I, Altman DG, et al. Incorporation of assessments of risk of bias of primary studies in systematic reviews of randomised trials: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2013;3:e003342.
32. Falck-Ytter Y, Schünemann H, Guyatt G. AHRQ series commentary 1: rating the evidence in comparative effectiveness reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63: 474-5.
33. Bambra C. Real world reviews: a beginner's guide to undertaking systematic reviews of public health policy interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 2011;65:14-19.
34. Katikireddi SV, Higgins M, Smith KE, et al. Health inequalities: the need to move beyond bad behaviours. J Epidemiol Community Health 2013;67:715-16.
35. 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.
36. Owens DK, Lohr KN, Atkins D, et al. AHRQ Series Paper 5: grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions-Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Effective Health-Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:513-23.
37. Dechartres A, Trinquart L, Boutron I, et al. Influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 2013;346:f2304.
38. Treadwell JR, Singh S, Talati R, et al. A framework for best evidence approaches can improve the transparency of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2012;65:1159-62.
39. Verhagen AP, de Vet HCW, de Bie RA, et al. The art of quality assessment of RCTs included in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2001;54:651-4.