There were large discrepancies in risk of bias tool judgments when a randomized controlled trial appeared in more than one systematic review

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 81, Issue , 2017, Pages 72-76

  Jordan, Vanessa M B ^a   Lensen, Sarah F ^a   Farquhar, Cynthia M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Cochrane; Internal validity; Meta analysis; Quality; Reliability; Risk of bias; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COCHRANE LIBRARY; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE SUBFERTILITY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LIVE BIRTH; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RISK OF BIAS; SELECTIVE REPORTING; STATISTICAL BIAS; STUDY DESIGN; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; INFERTILITY; LITERATURE; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); HUMANS; INFERTILITY; JUDGMENT; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 85009227804     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.08.012     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. [1] Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med, 6(7), 2009, e1000097.
2. [2] Guyatt, G.H., Oxman, A.D., Vist, G.E., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Alonso-Coello, P., et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336 (2008), 924–926.
3. [3] Higgins, J.P., Green, S., The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 343, 2011, d5928.
4. [4] Higgins, J.P., Green, S., Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2011, The Cochrane Collaboration, Chichester, West Sussex, England.
5. [5] Hartling, L., Ospina, M., Liang, Y., Dryden, D.M., Hooton, N., KrebsSeida, J., Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study. BMJ, 339, 2009, b4012.
6. [6] Savovic, J., Weeks, L., Sterne, J.A., Turner, L., Altman, D.G., Moher, D., et al. Evaluation of the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials: focus groups, online survey, proposed recommendations and their implementation. Syst Rev, 3, 2014, 37.
7. [7] Hartling, L., Hamm, M.P., Milne, A., Vandermeer, B., Santaguida, P.L., Ansari, M., 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.
8. [8] Review Manager (RevMan). 2014, The Cochrane Collaboration: Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre.
9. [9] Armijo-Olivo, S., Ospina, M., Costa, B.R., Egger, M., Saltaji, H., Fuentes, J., Poor reliability between Cochrane reviewers and blinded external reviewers when applying the Cochrane risk of bias tool in physical therapy trials. PLoS One, 9, 2014, e96920.
10. [10] Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. Guidance for reviews with Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility. 2015 Available at: http://cgf.cochrane.org/resources.