A new risk of bias checklist applicable to randomized trials, observational studies, and systematic reviews was developed and validated to be used for systematic reviews focusing on drug adverse events

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 86, Issue , 2017, Pages 168-175

  Faillie, Jean Luc ^a,b   Ferrer, Pili ^c   Gouverneur, Amandine ^d   Driot, Damien ^e   Berkemeyer, Shoma ^f   Vidal, Xavier ^c   Martínez Zapata, Maria José ^g   Huerta, Consuelo ^h   Castells, Xavier ⁱ   Rottenkolber, Marietta ^j   Schmiedl, Sven ^k,l   Sabaté, Mònica ^c   Ballarín, Elena ^c   Ibáñez, Luisa ^c  

^a UNIV MONTPELLIER   (France)

^b MONTPELLIER UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

^c Fundacion Institut Catala de Farmacologia   (Spain)

^d UNIVERSITÉ DE BORDEAUX   (France)

^e TOULOUSE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

^f Hochschule für Gesundheit Bochum University of Applied Science   (Germany)

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

^h Medicines for Human Use Department   (Spain)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF GIRONA   (Spain)

^j LUDWIG MAXIMILIANS UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^k UNIVERSITY OF WITTEN HERDECKE   (Germany)

^l HELIOS KLINIKUM WUPPERTAL   (Germany)

more..

Author keywords

Adverse drug events; Checklist; Meta analysis; Risk of bias; Study quality; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

ADVERSE DRUG REACTION; ARTICLE; CHECKLIST; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; CONFOUNDING VARIABLE; CONTENT VALIDITY; DRUG SAFETY; FACE VALIDITY; HUMAN; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; INTRARATER RELIABILITY; NOMENCLATURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK OF BIAS; SELECTION BIAS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL BIAS; STUDY DESIGN; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); DRUG-RELATED SIDE EFFECTS AND ADVERSE REACTIONS; LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; RISK; STANDARDS; VALIDATION STUDY;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CHECKLIST; DRUG-RELATED SIDE EFFECTS AND ADVERSE REACTIONS; HUMANS; OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES AS TOPIC; OBSERVER VARIATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; RISK;

EID: 85020194434     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.04.023     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Schulz, K.F., Altman, D.G., Moher, D., CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ, 340, 2010, c332.
2. Lohr, K.N., Carey, T.S., Assessing “best evidence”: issues in grading the quality of studies for systematic reviews. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 25 (1999), 470–479.
3. Downs, S.H., Black, N., The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 52 (1998), 377–384.
4. Higgins, J.P., Altman, D.G., Sterne, J.A.C., Assessing risk of bias in included studies. [updated March 2011] Higgins, J.P.T., Green, S., (eds.) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0, 2011, The Cochrane Collaboration Available at http://handbook.cochrane.org/ Accessed March 30, 2017.
5. Wells, K., Littell, J.H., Study quality assessment in systematic reviews of research on intervention effects. Res Soc Work Pract 19 (2008), 52–62.
6. Higgins, J.P., Altman, D.G., Gotzsche, P.C., Juni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A.D., et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 343, 2011, d5928.
7. Jadad, A.R., Moore, R.A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D.J., Gavaghan, D.J., et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?. Control Clin Trials 17 (1996), 1–12.
8. Wells, G., Shea, B., O'Connell, J., Robertson, J., Welch, V., Losos, M., et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2011 Available at http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm Accessed March 30, 2017.
9. Slim, K., Nini, E., Forestier, D., Kwiatkowski, F., Panis, Y., Chipponi, J., Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 73 (2003), 712–716.
10. Sterne, J.A.C., Higgins, J.P.T., Reeves, B.C., on behalf of the development group for ACROBAT-NRSI. A Cochrane Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool: for Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ACROBAT-NRSI), Version 1.0.0. 2014 Available at http://www.riskofbias.info Accessed March 30, 2017.
11. Sterne, J.A.C., Hernán, M.A., Reeves, B.C., Savović, J., Berkman, N.D., Viswanathan, M., et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions. BMJ, 355, 2016, i4919.
12. Shea, B.J., Hamel, C., Wells, G.A., Bouter, L.M., Kristjansson, E., Grimshaw, J., et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 62 (2009), 1013–1020.
13. Oxman, A.D., Checklists for review articles. BMJ 309 (1994), 648–651.
14. Loke, Y.K., Price, D., Herxheimer, A., Systematic reviews of adverse effects: framework for a structured approach. BMC Med Res Methodol, 7, 2007, 32.
15. Chou, R., Helfand, M., Challenges in systematic reviews that assess treatment harms. Ann Intern Med 142 (2005), 1090–1099.
16. Neyarapally, G.A., Hammad, T.A., Pinheiro, S.P., Iyasu, S., Review of quality assessment tools for the evaluation of pharmacoepidemiological safety studies. BMJ Open, 2, 2012, e001362.
17. Chou, R., Aronson, N., Atkins, D., Ismaila, A.S., Santaguida, P., Smith, D.H., et al. AHRQ series paper 4: assessing harms when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol 63 (2010), 502–512.
18. Cornelius, V.R., Perrio, M.J., Shakir, S.A., Smith, L.A., Systematic reviews of adverse effects of drug interventions: a survey of their conduct and reporting quality. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 18 (2009), 1223–1231.
19. Zorzela, L., Golder, S., Liu, Y., Pilkington, K., Hartling, L., Joffe, A., et al. Quality of reporting in systematic reviews of adverse events: systematic review. BMJ, 348, 2014, f7668.
20. Tricco, A.C., Soobiah, C., Berliner, S., Ho, J.M., Ng, C.H., Ashoor, H.M., et al. Efficacy and safety of cognitive enhancers for patients with mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ 185 (2013), 1393–1401.
21. Barbui, C., Esposito, E., Cipriani, A., Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and risk of suicide: a systematic review of observational studies. CMAJ 180 (2009), 291–297.
22. Chou, R., Fu, R., Carson, S., Saha, S., Helfand, M., Methodological shortcomings predicted lower harm estimates in one of two sets of studies of clinical interventions. J Clin Epidemiol 60 (2007), 18–28.
23. Lawlor, D.A., Juni, P., Ebrahim, S., Egger, M., Systematic review of the epidemiologic and trial evidence of an association between antidepressant medication and breast cancer. J Clin Epidemiol 56 (2003), 155–163.
24. McDonagh, M., Peterson, K., Lee, N., Thakurta, S., Drug class review: antiepileptic drugs for indications other than epilepsy. Oregon evidence-based practice center. 2008, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, 117 Available at http://www.ohsu.edu/drugeffectiveness/reports/final.cfm Accessed March 30, 2017.
25. Juni, P., Witschi, A., Bloch, R., Egger, M., The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 282 (1999), 1054–1060.
26. Bilandzic, A., Fitzpatrick, T., Rosella, L., Henry, D., Risk of bias in systematic reviews of non-randomized studies of adverse cardiovascular effects of thiazolidinediones and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors: application of a new Cochrane risk of bias tool. PLoS Med, 13, 2016, e1001987.
27. Pharmacoepidemiological Research on Outcomes of Therapeutics by a European Consortium (PROTECT). Available at: http://www.imi-protect.eu/about.shtml. Accessed March 30, 2017.
28. Ferrer, P., Ballarin, E., Sabate, M., Vidal, X., Rottenkolber, M., Amelio, J., et al. Antiepileptic drugs and suicide: a systematic review of adverse effects. Neuroepidemiology 42 (2014), 107–120.
29. Ferrer, P., Amelio, J., Ballarin, E., Sabate, M., Vidal, X., Rottenkolber, M., et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis: macrolides- and amoxicillin/clavulanate-induced acute liver injury. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 119 (2016), 3–9.
30. Rottenkolber, M., Rottenkolber, D., Fischer, R., Ibanez, L., Fortuny, J., Ballarin, E., et al. Inhaled beta-2-agonists/muscarinic antagonists and acute myocardial infarction in COPD patients. Respir Med 108 (2014), 1075–1090.
31. [updated May 2005] Glossary of Terms in the Cochrane Collaboration Version 4.2.5, 2005, The Cochrane Collaboration Available at www.cochrane.org/sites/default/files/uploads/glossary.pdf Accessed March 30, 2017.
32. Viswanathan M, Ansari MT, Berkman ND, Chang S, Hartling L, McPheeters LM, 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. March 2012. AHRQ Publication No. 12-EHC047-EF. Available at www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/. Accessed March 30, 2017.
33. Robinson, K.A., Chou, R., Berkman, N.D., Newberry, S.J., Fu, R., Hartling, L., et al. Integrating bodies of evidence: existing systematic reviews and primary studies. 2014, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), Rockville (MD) Available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK216379/ Accessed March 30, 2017.
34. Becker L, Oxman A. Chapter 22: Overviews of reviews. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 510 (updated March 2011). Higgins JPT, Green S (editors); 2011. Available at www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed March 30, 2017.
35. Hartling, L., Chisholm, A., Thomson, D., Dryden, D.M., A descriptive analysis of overviews of reviews published between 2000 and 2011. PLoS One, 7, 2012, e49667.
36. Thomson, D., Russell, K., Becker, L., Klassen, T., Hartling, L., The evolution of a new publication type: steps and challenges of producing overviews of reviews. Res Synth Methods 1 (2010), 198–211.
37. Hartling, L., Vandermeer, B., Fernandes, R.M., Systematic reviews, overviews of reviews and comparative effectiveness reviews: a discussion of approaches to knowledge synthesis. Evid Based Child Health 9 (2014), 486–494.
38. Pieper, D., Buechter, R., Jerinic, P., Eikermann, M., Overviews of reviews often have limited rigor: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 65 (2012), 1267–1273.
39. Sanderson, S., Tatt, I.D., Higgins, J.P., Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. Int J Epidemiol 36 (2007), 666–676.
40. Loke, Y., Price, D., Herxheimer, A., Adverse effects. [updated March 2011] Higgins, J.P.T., Green, S., (eds.) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0, 2011, The Cochrane Collaboration Available at http://handbook.cochrane.org/ Accessed March 30, 2017.
41. Streiner, D.L., Norman, C.R., Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 5th ed., 2015, Oxford University Press, NewYork.
42. Lawshe, C.H., A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychol 28 (1975), 563–575.
43. Crocker, L., Algina, J., Introduction to classical & modern test theory. 1986, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, Fort Worth.
44. West, S., King, V., Carey, T.S., Lohr, K.N., McKoy, N., Sutton, S.F., et al. Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 47 AHRQ Publication No. 02–E016. 2002, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD Available at http://archive.ahrq.gov/clinic/epcsums/strengthsum.htm Accessed March 30, 2017.
45. Abbing-Karahagopian, V., Kurz, X., de Vries, F., van Staa, T., Alvarez, Y., Hesse, U., et al. Bridging differences in outcomes of pharmacoepidemiological studies: designs and first results of the PROTECT Project. Curr Clin Pharmacol 9 (2014), 130–138.
46. Kendall, M.G., Babington Smith, B., The problem of m rankings. Ann Math Stat 10 (1939), 275–287.
47. Landis, J.R., Koch, G.G., The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33 (1977), 159–174.
48. Cicchetti, D.V., Sparrow, S.A., Developing criteria for establishing interrater reliability of specific items: applications to assessment of adaptive behavior. Am J Ment Defic 86 (1981), 127–137.
49. Crowe, M., Sheppard, L., A review of critical appraisal tools show they lack rigor: alternative tool structure is proposed. J Clin Epidemiol 64 (2011), 79–89.