Practicalities of using a modified version of the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool for randomised and non-randomised study designs applied in a health technology assessment setting

Research Synthesis Methods

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 200-211

  Robertson, Clare ^a   Ramsay, Craig ^a   Gurung, Tara ^a   Mowatt, Graham ^a   Pickard, Robert ^b   Sharma, Pawana ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^b NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cochrane collaboration; Non randomised; Risk of bias; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVER VARIATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PROCEDURES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REPRODUCIBILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SOFTWARE; STATISTICAL BIAS;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); OBSERVER VARIATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SOFTWARE; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84959331995     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17592887     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1102     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Artibani W, Grosso G, Novara G, Pecoraro G, Sidoti O, Sarti A, et al. 2003. Is laparoscopic radical prostatectomy better than traditional retropubic radical prostatectomy? An analysis of peri-operative morbidity in two contemporary series in Italy. Eur Urol 44: 401-6.
2. Bhayani SB, Pavlovich CP, Hsu TS, Sullivan W, Su LM. 2003. Prospective comparison of short-term convalescence: laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 61: 612-16.
3. Britton A, McKee M, Black N, McPherson K, Sanderson C, Bain C. 1998. Choosing between randomised and non-randomised studies a systematic review. Health Technol Assessment 2: 13.
4. Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D'Amico R, Sowden AJ, Sakarovitch C, Song F, et al. 2003. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess 7: 27.
5. Guazzoni G, Cestari A, Naspro R, Riva M, Centemero A, Zanoni M, et al. 2006. Intra- and peri-operative outcomes comparing radical retropubic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: results from a prospective, randomised, single-surgeon study. Eur Urol 50: 98-104.
6. Hartling L, Bond K, Vandermeer B, Seida J, Dryden DM, et al. 2011. Applying the risk of bias tool in a systematic review of combination long-acting beta-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids for persistent asthma. PLoS ONE 6(2): e17242. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017242
7. Hartling L, Ospina M, Liang Y, Dryden DM, Hooton N, Krebs Seida J, Klassen TP. 2009. Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study. BMJ 339: b4012
8. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC. 2011. 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). Chichester, UK: The Cochrane Collaboration. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
9. Hu JC, Nelson RA, Wilson TG, Kawachi MH, Ramin SA, Lau C, et al. 2006. Perioperative complications of laparoscopic and robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 175: 541-6.
10. Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. 2001. Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 323: 42-46.
11. Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. 1999. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 282: 1054-60
12. Landis JR, Koch GG. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33: 159-747.
13. Ramsay C, Pickard R, Robertson C, Close A, Vale L, Armstrong N, et al. 2012. Systematic review and economic modelling of the relative clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for removal of the prostate in men with localised prostate cancer. Health Technol Assess 16: 41.
14. Reeves B. 2010. Personal communication, University of Bristol.
15. Reeves BC, Wells G, Shea B. 2010. Classifying non-randomised studies (NRS) and the assessing the risk of bias for a systematic review. Workshop at the 15th Annual Meeting of UK and Ireland Contributors to The Cochrane Collaboration, Cardiff.
16. Reeves BC, Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Wells GA. 2011. On behalf of the Cochrane Non-Randomised Studies Methods Group. Including non-randomised studies. Chapter 13 [document on the internet]. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011].The Cochrane Collaboration; [accessed March 2011]. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org.
17. Touijer K, Kuroiwa K, Eastham JA, Vickers A, Reuter VE, Scardino PT, et al. 2007. Risk-adjusted analysis of positive surgical margins following laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 52: 1090-6.
18. Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, Schulz K, Jüni P, Altman DG, Gluud C, Martin RM, Wood AJG, Sterne JAC. 2008. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 336: 601-605.