Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

Volumn , Issue , 2019, Pages 205-228

  Higgins, Julian P T ^a   Savović, Jelena ^a   Page, Matthew J ^b   Elbers, Roy G ^a   Sterne, Jonathan A C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^b MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Cochrane reviews; Cochrane risk of bias tool; Individually randomized parallel group trials; Intended interventions; Outcome data; Outcome measurement; Randomized trials

Indexed keywords

EID: 85098993549     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/9781119536604.ch8     Document Type: Chapter

References (30)

1. Abraha I, Montedori A. Modified intention to treat reporting in randomised controlled trials:systematic review. BMJ 2010; 340:c2697.
2. Bell ML, Fiero M, Horton NJ, Hsu CH. Handling missing data in RCTs: a review of the top medical journals. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2014; 14:118.
3. Bello S, Moustgaard H, Hróbjartsson A. Unreported formal assessment of unblinding occurred in 4 of 10 randomized clinical trials, unreported loss of blinding in 1 of 10 trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2017; 81:42-50.
4. Berger VW. Quantifying the magnitude of baseline covariate imbalances resulting from selection bias in randomized clinical trials. Biometrical Journal 2005; 47:119-127.
5. Boutron I, Estellat C, Guittet L, Dechartres A, Sackett DL, Hróbjartsson A, Ravaud P. Methods of blinding in reports of randomized controlled trials assessing pharmacologic treatments: a systematic review. PLoS Medicine 2006; 3:e425.
6. Brown S, Thorpe H, Hawkins K, Brown J. Minimization - reducing predictability for multi-centre trials whilst retaining balance within centre. Statistics in Medicine 2005; 24:3715-3727.
7. Clark L, Fairhurst C, Torgerson DJ. Allocation concealment in randomised controlled trials:are we getting better? BMJ 2016; 355:i5663.
8. Corbett MS, Higgins JPT, Woolacott NF. Assessing baseline imbalance in randomised trials:implications for the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Research Synthesis Methods 2014; 5:79-85.
9. Fergusson D, Aaron SD, Guyatt G, Hebert P. Post-randomisation exclusions: the intention to treat principle and excluding patients from analysis. BMJ 2002; 325:652-654.
10. Gravel J, Opatrny L, Shapiro S. The intention-to-treat approach in randomized controlled trials: are authors saying what they do and doing what they say? Clinical Trials (London, England) 2007; 4:350-356.
11. Haahr MT, Hróbjartsson A. Who is blinded in randomized clinical trials? A study of 200 trials and a survey of authors. Clinical Trials (London, England) 2006; 3:360-365.
12. Hernán MA, Hernandez-Diaz S. Beyond the intention-to-treat in comparative effectiveness research. Clinical Trials (London, England) 2012; 9:48-55.
13. Hernán MA, Scharfstein D. Cautions as regulators move to end exclusive reliance on intention to treat. Annals of Internal Medicine 2018; 168:515-516.
14. Hernán MA, Robins JM. Per-protocol analyses of pragmatic trials. New England Journal of Medicine 2017; 377:1391-1398.
15. Higgins JPT, White IR, Wood AM. Imputation methods for missing outcome data in meta-analysis of clinical trials. Clinical Trials 2008; 5:225-239.
16. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savović J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JAC. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343:d5928.
17. Hollis S, Campbell F. What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ 1999; 319:670-674.
18. Jensen JS, Bielefeldt AO, Hróbjartsson A. Active placebo control groups of pharmacological interventions were rarely used but merited serious consideration: a methodological overview. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2017; 87:35-46.
19. Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001; 323:42-46.
20. Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, Gamble C, Dodd S, Smyth R, Williamson PR. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ 2010; 340:c365.
21. Mansournia MA, Higgins JPT, Sterne JAC, Hernán MA. Biases in randomized trials: a conversation between trialists and epidemiologists. Epidemiology 2017; 28:54-59.
22. Menerit CL. Clinical Trials-Design, Conduct, and Analysis. 2nd ed. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 2012.
23. National Research Council. The Prevention and Treatment of Missing Data in Clinical Trials. Panel on Handling Missing Data in Clinical Trials. Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2010.
24. Page MJ, Higgins JPT. Rethinking the assessment of risk of bias due to selective reporting:a cross-sectional study. Systematic Reviews 2016; 5:108.
25. Piantadosi S. Clinical Trials: A Methodologic Perspective. 2nd ed. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley; 2005.
26. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995; 273:408-412.
27. Schulz KF. Subverting randomization in controlled trials. JAMA 1995; 274:1456-1458.
28. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Generation of allocation sequences in randomised trials: chance, not choice. Lancet 2002; 359:515-519.
29. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Altman DG. The landscape and lexicon of blinding in randomized trials. Annals of Internal Medicine 2002; 136:254-259.
30. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. The Lancet Handbook of Essential Concepts in Clinical Research. Edinburgh (UK): Elsevier; 2006