Identifying the 'incredible'! Part 1: Assessing the risk of bias in outcomes included in systematic reviews

British Journal of Sports Medicine

Volumn 54, Issue 13, 2020, Pages 798-800

  Büttner, Fionn ^a   Winters, Marinus ^b   Delahunt, Eamonn ^a   Elbers, Roy ^c   Lura, Carolina B ^b   Khan, Karim M ^d   Weir, Adam ^e,f,g   Ardern, Clare L ^h,i,j  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

^b AALBORG UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^e ASPETAR ORTHOPAEDIC AND SPORTS MEDICINE HOSPITAL   (Qatar)

^f ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^g Sports Medicine and Exercise Clinic Haarlem   (Netherlands)

^h LA TROBE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

ⁱ LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^j KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

more..

Author keywords

education; meta analysis; methodological; review

Indexed keywords

CHECKLIST; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PROCEDURES; RISK ASSESSMENT; SPORTS MEDICINE; STATISTICAL BIAS;

BIAS; CHECKLIST; HUMANS; RESEARCH DESIGN; RISK ASSESSMENT; SPORTS MEDICINE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85076993101     PISSN: 03063674     EISSN: 14730480     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2019-100806     Document Type: Review

References (24)

1. Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med 1987;106:485-8.
2. Weir A, Rabia S, Ardern C. Trusting systematic reviews and meta-analyses: all that glitters is not gold! Br J Sports Med 2016;50:1100-1.
3. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley, 2008: 672.
4. Bandholm T, Henriksen M, Thorborg K. Slow down to strengthen sport and exercise medicine research. Br J Sports Med 2017;51:1453.
5. Page MJ, Higgins JPT, Clayton G, et al. Empirical evidence of study design biases in randomized trials: systematic review of Meta-Epidemiological studies. PLoS One 2016;11:e0159267.
6. Turner L, Boutron I, Hróbjartsson A, et al. The evolution of assessing bias in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: celebrating methodological contributions of the Cochrane collaboration. Syst Rev 2013;2:79.
7. Katrak P, Bialocerkowski AE, Massy-Westropp N, et al. A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools. BMC Med Res Methodol 2004;4:22.
8. Boutron I, Ravaud P. Classification systems to improve assessment of risk of bias. J Clin Epidemiol 2012;65:236-8.
9. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, et al. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials 1995;16:62-73.
10. Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001;323:42-6.
11. Jüni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, et al. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 1999;282:1054-60.
12. da Costa BR, Hilfiker R, Egger M. PEDro's bias: summary quality scores should not be used in meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:75-7.
13. Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, et al. Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1992;45:255-65.
14. Greenland S, O'Rourke K. On the bias produced by quality scores in meta-analysis, and a hierarchical view of proposed solutions. Biostatistics 2001;2:463-71.
15. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928.
16. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016;355.
17. Whiting P, Savovic J, Higgins JPT, et al. ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;69:225-34.
18. Hayden JA, van der Windt DA, Cartwright JL, et al. Assessing bias in studies of prognostic factors. Ann Intern Med 2013;158:280.
19. Whiting PF, Weswood ME, Rutjes AWS, et al. Evaluation of QUADAS, a tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006;6:9.
20. Moons KGM, Wolff RF, Riley RD, et al. PROBAST: a tool to assess risk of bias and applicability of prediction model studies: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2019;170:W1-33.
21. Sterne JAC, Savovic J, Page MJ, et al. Rob 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019;2.
22. Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 2008;336:601-5.
23. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009;339.
24. Soares HP, Daniels S, Kumar A, et al. Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the radiation therapy Oncology Group. BMJ 2004;328:22-4.