Considerations from the risk of bias perspective for updating Cochrane reviews

Systematic Reviews

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Mayhew, Alain D ^a   Kabir, Monisha ^b   Ansari, Mohammed T ^b  

^a OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

'Risk of bias'; Cochrane methods; Systematic reviews; Updating

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; COCHRANE LIBRARY; HUMAN; NOTE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK OF BIAS; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); WORKLOAD; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; STANDARDS; STATISTICAL BIAS;

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

EID: 84943658417     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20464053     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-015-0122-3     Document Type: Note

References (30)

1. The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Review updates. http://community.cochrane.org/editorial-and-publishing-policy-resource/cochrane-review-updates. Accessed 4 Oct 2015.
2. Citation of updates for full published Cochrane reviews: policy change. http://www.editorial-unit.cochrane.org/sites/editorial-unit.cochrane.org/files/uploads/Citation%20of%20updates_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 12 Aug 2015.
3. Shojania K, Sampson M, Ansari M, Ji J, Garritty C, Rader T, et al. Updating systematic reviews. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2007. p. 1-135.
4. Shekelle P, Motala A, Johnsen B. Assessment of a method to detect signals for updating systematic reviews. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2014.
5. Shekelle PG, Newberry SJ, Wu H, Suttorp M, Motala A, Lim Y et al. Identifying signals for updating systematic reviews: a comparison of two methods. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2011.
6. Ahmadzai N, Newberry SJ, Maglione M, Tsertsvadze A, Ansari M, Hempel S, et al. A surveillance system to assess the need for updating systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2013;2:104. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-2-104.
7. Newberry S, Ahmadzai N, Motala A, Tsertsvadze A, Maglione M, Ansari M, et al. Surveillance and identification of signals for updating systematic reviews: implementation and early experience; methods research report. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2013.
8. Sutton AJ, Donegan S, Takwoingi Y, Garner P, Gamble C, Donald A. An encouraging assessment of methods to inform priorities for updating systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(3):241-51. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.04.005.
9. Moher D, Tsertsvadze A. Systematic reviews: when is an update an update? Lancet. 2006;367:881-3.
10. Moher D, Tsertsvadze A, Tricco A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Sampson M, et al. When and how to update systematic reviews (Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(1). doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000023.pub3.
11. Takwoingi Y, Hopewell S, Tovey D, Sutton A. A multicomponent decision tool for prioritising the updating of systematic reviews. BMJ. 2013;347:f7191.
12. Kearney MH. Hoping for a TREND toward PRISMA: the variety and value of research reporting guidelines. Res Nurs Health. 2014;37(2):85-7. doi: 10.1002/nur.21591.
13. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e100097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
14. Higgins JPT, Green S. Assessment of study quality. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.6 [updated September 2006]; Section 6. In: The Cochrane library, Issue 4. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2006.
15. Higgins JPT, Altman DG. Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester (UK): John Wiley and Sons; 2008.
16. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC. Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011.
17. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Higgins JPT, Vist GE, Glasziou P, Guyatt GH. Chapter 11: presenting results and 'Summary of findings' tables. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons; 2008.
18. French SD, McDonald S, McKenzie JE, Green SE. Investing in updating: how do conclusions change when Cochrane systematic reviews are updated? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5:33.
19. Archie-the Cochrane Collaboration database, search function. https://archie.cochrane.org. Accessed 13 Sept 2015.
20. Savović J, Weeks L, Sterne JAC, Turner L, Altman DG, Moher D, et al. Evaluation of the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomised trials: focus groups, online survey, proposed recommendations and their implementation. Syst Rev. 2014;3(1):37. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-3-37.
21. Cochrane Editorial Unit. Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR). http://editorial-unit.cochrane.org/mecir. Accessed 18 Aug 2015.
22. Reid EK, Tejani AM, Huan LN, Egan G, O'Sullivan C, Lawrence K. Managing the incidence of selective reporting: a survey of Cochrane review groups. 11th Annual Cochrane Canada Symposium, April 2014, Ottawa, Canada.
23. Lang A, Edwards N, Fleiszer A. Empty systematic reviews: hidden perils and lessons learned. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(6):595-7. doi: 10.1016/j.clinepi.2007.01.005.
24. Yaffe J, Montgomery P, Hopewell S, Shepard LD. Empty reviews: a description and consideration of Cochrane systematic reviews with no included studies. PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e36626. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036626. Epub 2012 May 4.
25. Higgins JPT, Green S, Scholten RJPM. Chapter 3: maintaining reviews: updates, amendments and feedback. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011.
26. De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, et al. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:477-8. Epub 2004 Sep 8. PMID: 15355883.
27. U.S. Public Law 110-85. Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007. 2007. p. 1-156.
28. CONSORT Group. CONSORT: transparent reporting of trials. http://www.consort-statement.org/. Accessed 19 Aug 2015.
29. Haahr MT, Hróbjartsson A. Who is blinded in randomised clinical trials? A study of 200 trials and a survey of authors. Clin Trials. 2006;3:360-5.
30. Cochrane Bias Methods Group and Cochrane Non-Randomised Studies Methods Group. A Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool: for non-randomised studies of interventions (ACROBAT-NRSI). www.riskofbias.info. Accessed 4 Oct 2015.