Risk of bias assessment of sequence generation: a study of 100 systematic reviews of trials.

Humans Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Risk Assessment Selection Bias Systematic Reviews as Topic
Quality of evidence Randomisation Risk of bias Sequence generation Systematic reviews

Journal

Systematic reviews
ISSN: 2046-4053
Titre abrégé: Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101580575

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
08 01 2019
Historique:
received: 03 07 2018
accepted: 18 12 2018
entrez: 10 1 2019
pubmed: 10 1 2019
medline: 3 4 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Systematic reviews of randomised trials guide policy and healthcare decisions. Yet, we observed that some reviews judge randomised trials as high or unclear risk of bias (ROB) for sequence generation, potentially introducing bias. However, to date, the extent of this issue has not been well examined. We evaluated the consistency in the ROB assessment for sequence generation of randomised trials in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, and explored the reviewers' judgement of the quality of evidence for the related outcomes. Cochrane intervention reviews (01/01/2017-31/03/2017) were retrieved from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We also searched for systematic reviews in ten general medical journals with highest impact factors (01/01/2016-31/03/2017). We examined the proportion of reviews that rated the sequence generation domain as high, low or unclear risk of selection bias. For reviews that had rated any randomised trials as high or unclear risk of bias, we examined the proportion that had assessed the quality of evidence. Overall, 100 systematic reviews were included in our analysis. We evaluated 64 Cochrane reviews which comprised of 984 randomised trials; 0.8% (n = 8) and 52.2% (n = 514) were rated as high and unclear ROB for sequence generation respectively. We further evaluated 36 non-Cochrane reviews which comprised of 1376 trials; 5.8% (n = 80) and 39.6% (n = 545) were rated as high and unclear ROB respectively. Ninety percent (n = 10) of non-Cochrane reviews which rated randomised trials as high ROB for sequence generation did not report an underlying reason. All Cochrane reviews assessed the quality of evidence (GRADE). For the non-Cochrane reviews, only just over half had assessed the quality of evidence. Systematic reviews of interventions frequently rate randomised trials as high or unclear ROB for sequence generation. In general, Cochrane reviews were more transparent than non-Cochrane reviews in ROB and quality of evidence assessment. The scientific community should more strongly promote consistent ROB assessment for sequence generation to minimise selection bias and support transparent quality of evidence assessment. Consistency ensures that appropriate conclusions are drawn from the data.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Systematic reviews of randomised trials guide policy and healthcare decisions. Yet, we observed that some reviews judge randomised trials as high or unclear risk of bias (ROB) for sequence generation, potentially introducing bias. However, to date, the extent of this issue has not been well examined. We evaluated the consistency in the ROB assessment for sequence generation of randomised trials in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, and explored the reviewers' judgement of the quality of evidence for the related outcomes.
METHODS
Cochrane intervention reviews (01/01/2017-31/03/2017) were retrieved from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We also searched for systematic reviews in ten general medical journals with highest impact factors (01/01/2016-31/03/2017). We examined the proportion of reviews that rated the sequence generation domain as high, low or unclear risk of selection bias. For reviews that had rated any randomised trials as high or unclear risk of bias, we examined the proportion that had assessed the quality of evidence.
RESULTS
Overall, 100 systematic reviews were included in our analysis. We evaluated 64 Cochrane reviews which comprised of 984 randomised trials; 0.8% (n = 8) and 52.2% (n = 514) were rated as high and unclear ROB for sequence generation respectively. We further evaluated 36 non-Cochrane reviews which comprised of 1376 trials; 5.8% (n = 80) and 39.6% (n = 545) were rated as high and unclear ROB respectively. Ninety percent (n = 10) of non-Cochrane reviews which rated randomised trials as high ROB for sequence generation did not report an underlying reason. All Cochrane reviews assessed the quality of evidence (GRADE). For the non-Cochrane reviews, only just over half had assessed the quality of evidence.
CONCLUSION
Systematic reviews of interventions frequently rate randomised trials as high or unclear ROB for sequence generation. In general, Cochrane reviews were more transparent than non-Cochrane reviews in ROB and quality of evidence assessment. The scientific community should more strongly promote consistent ROB assessment for sequence generation to minimise selection bias and support transparent quality of evidence assessment. Consistency ensures that appropriate conclusions are drawn from the data.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1186/s13643-018-0924-1 PMID: 30621793 PMC: PMC6323681
pubmed: 30621793
doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0924-1
pii: 10.1186/s13643-018-0924-1
pmc: PMC6323681
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

13

Subventions

Organisme : Chief Scientist Office
ID : HSRU1
Pays : United Kingdom

Références

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 09;2:CD011075
pubmed: 28181687
BMJ. 2017 Feb 22;356:j656
pubmed: 28348110
Ann Intern Med. 2016 Mar 15;164(6):406-16
pubmed: 26830221
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Apr 13;(4):MR000012
pubmed: 21491415
Lancet. 2016 Aug 27;388(10047):881-90
pubmed: 27289172
Ann Intern Med. 2016 Apr 5;164(7):472-8
pubmed: 26881842
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Mar 04;3:CD010777
pubmed: 28258686
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jan 13;1:CD011923
pubmed: 28085995
JAMA. 2016 Jun 14;315(22):2424-34
pubmed: 27299618
Ann Intern Med. 2016 Jul 19;165(2):103-12
pubmed: 27136278
JAMA. 2016 Jun 21;315(23):2554-63
pubmed: 27327802
CMAJ. 2017 Mar 6;189(9):E341-E364
pubmed: 27799615
BMJ Open. 2015 Sep 03;5(9):e008562
pubmed: 26338841
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Mar 16;3:CD010347
pubmed: 28301050
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Mar 10;3:CD011652
pubmed: 28278559
BMJ. 2016 Nov 7;355:i5599
pubmed: 27821641
JAMA. 2016 Nov 22;316(20):2104-2114
pubmed: 27893131
Ann Intern Med. 2016 Mar 15;164(6):417-24
pubmed: 26830055
BMJ. 2016 Apr 20;353:i1855
pubmed: 27098105
BMJ. 2016 Apr 21;353:i1777
pubmed: 27102806
BMJ. 2016 Dec 1;355:i6112
pubmed: 27908918
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005 Jul;10 Suppl 1:35-48
pubmed: 16053582
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):407-15
pubmed: 21247734

Auteurs

Francesca Wuytack (F)

School of Nursing & Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, 24 D'Olier Street, Dublin 2, Ireland. wuytacf@tcd.ie.
ORCID: 0000-0001-7720-1722

Maria Regan (M)

School of Medicine, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland.

Linda Biesty (L)

HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network/School of Nursing & Midwifery, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland.

Pauline Meskell (P)

Department of Nursing & Midwifery, Health Sciences Building, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.

Jennifer E Lutomski (JE)

Radboud Biobank, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Martin O'Donnell (M)

School of Medicine, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland.

Shaun Treweek (S)

Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK.

Declan Devane (D)

HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network/School of Nursing & Midwifery, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female

Evaluation of Low-Value Services Across Major Medicare Advantage Insurers and Traditional Medicare.

Ciara Duggan, Adam L Beckman, Ishani Ganguli et al.
1.00
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C

Effectiveness of Virtual Yoga for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Hallie Tankha, Devyn Gaskins, Amanda Shallcross et al.
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH

questionsmedicales.fr › Eucaryotes › Animaux › Chordés › Vertébrés › Mammifères › Eutheria › Primates › Haplorhini › Catarrhini › Hominidae › Humains › Risk of bias assessment of sequence...
questionsmedicales.fr › Environnement et santé publique › Santé publique › Méthodes épidémiologiques › Caractéristiques des études épidémiologiques › Études cliniques comme sujet › Essais cliniques comme sujet › Essais cliniques contrôlés comme sujet › Essais contrôlés randomisés comme sujet › Risk of bias assessment of sequence...
questionsmedicales.fr › Environnement et santé publique › Santé publique › Méthodes épidémiologiques › Statistiques comme sujet › Probabilité › Risque › Appréciation des risques › Risk of bias assessment of sequence...
questionsmedicales.fr › Environnement et santé publique › Santé publique › Facteurs épidémiologiques › Biais (épidémiologie) › Biais de sélection › Risk of bias assessment of sequence...
questionsmedicales.fr › Sciences de l'information › Sources d'information › Moyens de communication › Publications › Littérature de revue comme sujet › Revues systématiques comme sujet › Risk of bias assessment of sequence...