Effect of standardized training on the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool: A study protocol

Systematic Reviews

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Da Costa, Bruno R ^a   Resta, Nina M ^a   Beckett, Brooke ^a   Israel Stahre, Nicholas ^a   Diaz, Alison ^a   Johnston, Bradley C ^b,c,d   Egger, Matthias ^e   Jüni, Peter ^e   Armijo Olivo, Susan ^f  

^a FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^d HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

^f UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cochrane; Meta analysis; RCT; Risk of bias; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COCHRANE LIBRARY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DATA EXTRACTION; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RELIABILITY; STATISTICAL BIAS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; PILOT STUDY; REPRODUCIBILITY;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); PILOT PROJECTS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 84927933497     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20464053     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-3-144     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med 1997, 126:376-380. 10.7326/0003-4819-126-5-199703010-00006, 9054282.
2. Egger M, Smith GD. Meta-analysis: potentials and promise. BMJ 1997, 315:1371-1374. 10.1136/bmj.315.7119.1371, 2127866, 9432250.
3. Egger M, Smith GD, Sterne JA. Uses and abuses of meta-analysis. Clin Med 2001, 1:478-484. 10.7861/clinmedicine.1-6-478, 11792089.
4. Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001, 323:42-46. 10.1136/bmj.323.7303.42, 1120670, 11440947.
5. Higgins J, Altman D. " Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies". Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.0 2008, Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Higgins J, Green S.
6. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Goetzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011, 343:d5928. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5928, 10.1136/bmj.d5928, 3196245, 22008217.
7. Sterne JA. Why the Cochrane risk of bias tool should not include funding source as a standard item. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013, 12:ED000076.
8. Armijo-Olivo S, Ospina M, da Costa BR, Egger M, Saltaji H, Fuentes CJ, Ha C, Cummings GG. Poor reliability between Cochrane reviewers and blinded external reviewers when applying the Cochrane risk of bias tool in physical therapy trials. PLoS One 2014, 9:1-10.
9. Graham N, Haines T, Goldsmith CH, Gross A, Burnie S, Shahzad U, Talovikova E. Reliability of three assessment tools used to evaluate randomized controlled trials for treatment of neck pain. Spine 2011, 37:515-522.
10. Hartling L, Hamm MP, Milne A, Vandermeer B, Santaguida PL, Ansari M, Tsertsvadze A, Hempel S, Shekelle P, Dryden DM. Testing the risk of bias tool showed low reliability between individual reviewers and across consensus assessments of reviewer pairs. J Clin Epidemiol 2012, 66:973-981.
11. da Costa BR, Hilfiker R, Egger M. PEDro's bias: summary quality scores should not be used in meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2013, 66:75-77. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.08.003, 23177896.
12. Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. Jama 1999, 282:1054-1060. 10.1001/jama.282.11.1054, 10493204.
13. Byrt T. How good is that agreement?. Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass) 1996, 7:561-1996.
14. Efron B. Better bootstrap confidence intervals. J Am Stat Assoc 1987, 82:171-185.
15. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA 2001, 285:1987-1991. 10.1001/jama.285.15.1987, 11308435.
16. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gotzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2010, 63:e1-e37.
17. To MJ, Jones J, Emara M, Jadad AR. Are reports of randomized controlled trials improving over time? A systematic review of 284 articles published in high-impact general and specialized medical journals. PLoS One 2013, 8:e84779. 10.1371/journal.pone.0084779, 3877340, 24391973.
18. Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA 2001, 285:1992-1995. 10.1001/jama.285.15.1992, 11308436.
19. Nuesch E, Trelle S, Reichenbach S, Rutjes AW, Tschannen B, Altman DG, Egger M, Jüni P. Small study effects in meta-analyses of osteoarthritis trials: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 2010, 341:c3515. 10.1136/bmj.c3515, 2905513, 20639294.
20. Alonso-Coello P, Carrasco-Labra A, Brignardello-Petersen R, Neumann I, Akl EA, Sun X, Johnston BC, Briel M, Busse JW, Glujovsky D, Granados CE, Iorio A, Irfan A, García LM, Mustafa RA, Ramirez-Morera A, Solà I, Tikkinen KA, Ebrahim S, Vandvik PO, Zhang Y, Selva A, Sanabria AJ, Zazueta OE, Vernooij RW, Schünemann HJ, Guyatt GH. A methodological survey of the analysis, reporting and interpretation of Absolute Risk ReductiOn in systematic revieWs (ARROW): a study protocol. Syst Rev 2013, 2:113. 10.1186/2046-4053-2-113, 3867670, 24330779.
21. Fourcade L, Boutron I, Moher D, Ronceray L, Baron G, Ravaud P. Development and evaluation of a pedagogical tool to improve understanding of a quality checklist: a randomised controlled trial. PLoS Clin Trials 2007, 2:e22. 10.1371/journal.pctr.0020022, 1865084, 17479163.
22. Unnebrink K, Windeler J. Intention-to-treat: methods for dealing with missing values in clinical trials of progressively deteriorating diseases. Stat Med 2001, 20:3931-3946. 10.1002/sim.1149, 11782044.
23. Wright CC, Sim J. Intention-to-treat approach to data from randomized controlled trials: a sensitivity analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2003, 56:833-842. 10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00155-0, 14505767.
24. Hartling L, Bond K, Vandermeer B, Seida J, Dryden D, Rowe B. Applying the risk of bias tool in a systematic review of combination long-acting beta-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids for persistent asthma. PLoS Med 2011, 6:1-6.
25. Hartling L, Ospina M, Liang Y, Dryden DM, Hooton N, Seida JK, Klassen TP. Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study. BMJ 2009, 339:1017.
26. Armijo-Olivo S, Stiles CR, Hagen NA, Biondo PD, Cummings GG. 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. 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01516.x, 20698919.