RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

The BMJ

Volumn 366, Issue , 2019, Pages

  Sterne, Jonathan A C ^a,b   Savović, Jelena ^a,c   Page, Matthew J ^d   Elbers, Roy G ^a   Blencowe, Natalie S ^a,b   Boutron, Isabelle ^e,f,g   Cates, Christopher J ^h   Cheng, Hung Yuan ^a,b   Corbett, Mark S ⁱ   Eldridge, Sandra M ^j   Emberson, Jonathan R ^k   Hernán, Miguel A ^l   Hopewell, Sally ^k   Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn ^m,n   Junqueira, Daniela R ^o   Jüni, Peter ^p   Kirkham, Jamie J ^q   Lasserson, Toby ^r   Li, Tianjing ^s   McAleenan, Alexandra ^a   Reeves, Barnaby C ^a,b   Shepperd, Sasha ^k   Shrier, Ian ^t   Stewart, Lesley A ⁱ   Tilling, Kate ^a,b,u   White, Ian R ^v   Whiting, Penny F ^a,c   Higgins, Julian P T ^a,b,c   more..

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS BRISTOL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^d MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^e PARIS DESCARTES UNIVERSITY   (France)

^f UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DESCARTES   (France)

^g Cochrane France ^*  (France)

^h ST GEORGE'S UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^j QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^k UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^l HARVARD MIT DIVISION OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^m ODENSE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

ⁿ UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

^o UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^p ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^q UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^r Edit and Methods Department   (United Kingdom)

^s JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^t MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^u UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^v UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK OF BIAS ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL BIAS; STUDY DESIGN; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); VALIDITY; METHODOLOGY;

BIAS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 85071628750     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: 17561833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l4898     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:383-94. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026
2. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al, Cochrane Bias Methods Group, Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928. doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928
3. Savović J, Weeks L, Sterne JAC, 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 2014;3:37. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-3-37
4. Hopewell S, Boutron I, Altman DG, Ravaud P. Incorporation of assessments of risk of bias of primary studies in systematic reviews of randomised trials: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2013;3:e003342. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003342
5. Katikireddi SV, Egan M, Petticrew M. How do systematic reviews incorporate risk of bias assessments into the synthesis of evidence? A methodological study. J Epidemiol Community Health 2015;69:189-95. doi:10.1136/jech-2014-204711
6. Jorgensen L, Paludan-Müller AS, Laursen DR, et al. Evaluation of the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized clinical trials: overview of published comments and analysis of user practice in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. Syst Rev 2016;5:80. doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0259-8
7. Dechartres A, Trinquart L, Atal I, et al. Evolution of poor reporting and inadequate methods over time in 20 920 randomised controlled trials included in Cochrane reviews: research on research study [correction in: BMJ 2017;358:j3806]. BMJ 2017;357:j2490. doi:10.1136/bmj.j2490
8. Hartling L, Hamm MP, Milne A, et al. Testing the risk of bias tool showed low reliability between individual reviewers and across consensus assessments of reviewer pairs. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:973-81. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.07.005
9. Sterne JAC, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016;355:i4919. doi:10.1136/bmj.i4919
10. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al, QUADAS-2 Group. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:529-36. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009
11. Hernán MA, Robins JM. Per-protocol analyses of pragmatic trials. N Engl J Med 2017;377:1391-8. doi:10.1056/NEJMsm1605385
12. Page MJ, Higgins JPT, Clayton G, Sterne JA, Hróbjartsson A, Savović J. Empirical evidence of study design biases in randomized trials: systematic review of meta-epidemiological studies. PLoS One 2016;11:e0159267. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0159267
13. Page MJ, Higgins JPT. Rethinking the assessment of risk of bias due to selective reporting: a cross-sectional study. Syst Rev 2016;5:108. doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0289-2
14. Lundh A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B, Schroll JB, Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;2:MR000033.
15. Bafeta A, Dechartres A, Trinquart L, Yavchitz A, Boutron I, Ravaud P. Impact of single centre status on estimates of intervention effects in trials with continuous outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 2012;344:e813. doi:10.1136/bmj.e813
16. Mansournia MA, Higgins JP, Sterne JA, Hernán MA. Biases in Randomized Trials: A Conversation Between Trialists and Epidemiologists. Epidemiology 2017;28:54-9. doi:10.1097/EDE.0000000000000564
17. Fergusson D, Aaron SD, Guyatt G, Hébert P. Post-randomisation exclusions: the intention to treat principle and excluding patients from analysis. BMJ 2002;325:652-4. doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7365.652
18. Hernán MA, Hernández-Díaz S. Beyond the intention-to-treat in comparative effectiveness research. Clin Trials 2012;9:48-55. doi:10.1177/1740774511420743
19. Murray EJ, Hernán MA. Adherence adjustment in the Coronary Drug Project: A call for better per-protocol effect estimates in randomized trials. Clin Trials 2016;13:372-8. doi:10.1177/1740774516634335
20. Lodi S, Sharma S, Lundgren JD, et al, INSIGHT Strategic Timing of AntiRetroviral Treatment (START) study group. The per-protocol effect of immediate versus deferred antiretroviral therapy initiation. AIDS 2016;30:2659-63. doi:10.1097/QAD.0000000000001243
21. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al, GRADE Working Group. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336:924-6. doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD