Risk of bias of randomized trials over time

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 68, Issue 9, 2015, Pages 1036-1045

  Reveiz, Ludovic ^a   Chapman, Evelina ^a   Asial, Santiago ^a   Munoz, Sergio ^b   Bonfill, Xavier ^c   Alonso Coello, Pablo ^d  

^a PAN AMERICAN HEALTH ORGANIZATION   (United States)

^b UNIVERSIDAD DE LA FRONTERA   (Chile)

^c BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE SANT PAU IIB SANT PAU   (Spain)

^d UNIVERSITAT AUTÒNOMA DE BARCELONA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Methods; Quality improvement; Randomized controlled trials; Research design; Risk of bias; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; MULTIVARIATE LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RISK; SAMPLE SIZE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL BIAS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); TIME;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); HUMANS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 84939472711     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.06.001     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. J.P. Higgins, D.G. Altman, P.C. Gøtzsche, P. Jüni, D. Moher, A.D. Oxman, et al. Cochrane Bias Methods Group Cochrane Statistical Methods Group The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials BMJ 343 2011 d5928
2. J.P.T. Higgins, and S. Green Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.1 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration Available at www.cochrane-handbook.org Accessed December 12, 2012
3. Institute of Medicine R. Graham, M. Mancher, D.M. Wolman, S. Greenfield, and E. Steinberg Clinical practice guidelines we can trust 2011 National Academies Press Washington, DC 2 Available at http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Clinical-Practice-Guidelines-We-Can-Trust/Standards.aspx Accessed June 27, 2014
4. G. Guyatt, A.D. Oxman, E.A. Akl, R. Kunz, G. Vist, J. Brozek, and et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables J Clin Epidemiol 64 2011 383 394
5. M.T. Crocetti, D.D. Amin, and R. Scherer Assessment of risk of bias among pediatric randomized controlled trials Pediatrics 126 2 2010 298 305
6. L. Reveiz, S. Sangalang, D. Glujovsky, C.E. Pinzon, C. Asenjo Lobos, M. Cortes, and et al. Characteristics of randomized trials published in Latin America and the Caribbean according to funding source PLoS One 8 2 2013 e56410
7. J. Savović, H. Jones, D. Altman, R. Harris, P. Juni, J. Pildal, and et al. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomised controlled trials: combined analysis of meta-epidemiological studies Health Technol Assess 16 2012 1 82
8. I. Boutron, and P. Ravaud Classification systems to improve assessment of risk of bias J Clin Epidemiol 65 2012 236 238
9. C. Begg, M. Cho, S. Eastwood, R. Horton, D. Moher, I. Olkin, and et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement JAMA 276 1996 637 639
10. D.G. Altman, K.F. Schulz, D. Moher, M. Egger, F. Davidoff, D. Elbourne, and et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration Ann Intern Med 134 2001 663 694
11. K.F. Schulz, D.G. Altman, D. Moher CONSORT Group CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials BMJ 340 2010 c332
12. L. Turner, L. Shamseer, D.G. Altman, K.F. Schulz, and D. Moher Does use of the CONSORT statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane review Syst Rev 1 1 2012 60
13. A. Dechartres, P. Charles, S. Hopewell, P. Ravaud, and D.G. Altman Reviews assessing the quality or the reporting of randomized controlled trials are increasing over time but raised questions about how quality is assessed J Clin Epidemiol 64 2011 136 144
14. A. Hróbjartsson, I. Boutron, L. Turner, D.G. Altman, and D. Moher Assessing risk of bias in randomised clinical trials included in Cochrane reviews: the why is easy, the how is a challenge [editorial] Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013 ED000058 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.ED000058
15. C.L. Vale, J.F. Tierney, and S. Burdett Can trial quality be reliably assessed from published reports of cancer trials: evaluation of risk of bias assessments in systematic reviews BMJ 346 2013 f1798
16. J. Pildal, A. Hróbjartsson, K.J. Jørgensen, J. Hilden, D.G. Altman, and P.C. Gøtzsche Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials Int J Epidemiol 36 2007 847 857
17. L. Wood, M. Egger, L.L. Gluud, K.F. Schulz, P. Jüni, D.G. Altman, and et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study BMJ 336 2008 601 605
18. M. Viswanathan, M.T. Ansari, N.D. Berkman, S. Chang, L. Hartling, L.M. McPheeters, and et al. Assessing the risk of bias of individual studies in systematic reviews of health care interventions. Agency for healthcare research and quality methods guide for comparative effectiveness reviews 2012 AHRQ Publication No. 12-EHC047-EF. Available at http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/322/998/MethodsGuideforCERs-Viswanathan-IndividualStudies.pdf Accessed June 27, 2014
19. The Evidence Centre on behalf of the Health Foundation. Research scan: complex adaptive systems. 2010. The Health Foundation. Available at http://www.health.org.uk/public/cms/75/76/313/2590/Complex%20adaptive%20systems.pdf?realName=jIq8CP.pdf. Accessed June 27 2014.
20. World Medical Association. WMA Declaration of Helsinki - ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Available at http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/. Accessed June 27, 2014.
21. Belmont Report. 1979. The Belmont Report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Available at hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html. Accessed June 27, 2014.
22. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). Available at http://www.ich.org/. Accessed June 27, 2014.
23. European Medicine Agency. Available at http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/. Accessed June 27, 2014.
24. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Science and Research. Available at http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/RunningClinicalTrials/default.htm. Accessed June 27, 2014.
25. World Association of Medical Editors. Available at http://www.wame.org/. Accessed June 27, 2014.
26. C. De Angelis, J.M. Drazen, F.A. Frizelle, C. Haud, J. Hoey, R. Horton, and et al. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors N Engl J Med 351 2004 1250 1251
27. C.D. De Angelis, J.M. Drazen, F.A. Frizelle, C. Haug, J. Hoey, R. Horton, and et al. Is this clinical trial fully registered? A statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors N Engl J Med 352 2005 2436 2438
28. World Health Organization The Mexico Statement on Health Research. Knowledge for better health: strengthening health systems 2011 WHO Geneva, Switzerland
29. World Health Organization The World Health Organization announces new standards for registration of all human medical research 2011 WHO Geneva, Switzerland
30. K. Krleža-Jeric, A.W. Chan, K. Dickersin, I. Sim, J. Grimshaw, C. Gluud Ottawa Group Principles for international registration of protocol information and results from human trials of health related interventions: Ottawa Statement (part 1) BMJ 330 2005 956 958
31. R. Mhaskar, B. Djulbegovic, A. Magazin, H.P. Soares, and A. Kumar Published methodological quality of randomized controlled trials does not reflect the actual quality assessed in protocols J Clin Epidemiol 65 2012 602 609 http://dx/doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.10.016
32. L. Hartling, M.P. Hamm, A. Milne, B. Vandermeer, P.L. Santaguida, M. Ansari, and et al. Testing the risk of bias tool showed low reliability between individual reviewers and across consensus assessments of reviewer pairs J Clin Epidemiol 66 2013 973 981 pii: S0895-4356(12)00217-X