Enhanced access to recommendations from the Cochrane Handbook for improving authors' judgments about risk of bias: A randomized controlled trial.
Cochrane
RoB tool
risk of bias
systematic reviews
Journal
Research synthesis methods
ISSN: 1759-2887
Titre abrégé: Res Synth Methods
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101543738
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2021
Sep 2021
Historique:
revised:
24
04
2021
received:
17
12
2020
accepted:
24
05
2021
pubmed:
30
5
2021
medline:
29
10
2021
entrez:
29
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to test the efficacy of enhanced access to Cochrane Handbook (Handbook) recommendations for judging the 2011 Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) domains for improving the adequacy of RoB judgments. Parallel-group RCT with a 1:1 allocation ratio (N = 2271 per group) was conducted. Eligible participants were corresponding authors of all published Cochrane reviews and protocols. After allocation by a random number generator, participants received 20 scenarios for assessing RoB. The intervention group was shown tables from the Handbook with instructions for assessing 2011 RoB tool together with scenarios they were supposed to assess-enhanced access to the Handbook. The control group was shown only a general link to the Handbook. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants that made an adequate judgment of RoB scenarios for analyzed domains. There were 240 responses out of 2020 delivered e-mail invitations in the intervention and 197/2254 in the control group. Only five participants from the intervention group judged RoB adequately in all the 20 scenarios and no one in the control group. The proportion of participants who adequately assessed all the scenarios within a domain was significantly higher in the intervention than in the control group. The frequency of adequate RoB judgments was 7.1% (95% CI: 5.0-9.3%, p < 0.001) higher in the intervention group (76.2%) than in the control group (69.0%). The enhanced access yields more adequate RoB assessments and could be incorporated in software supporting the RoB tool.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
618-629Informations de copyright
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928
Jorgensen L, Paludan-Muller 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. Review systematic review. Syst Rev. 2016;5:80. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0259-8
Babic A, Pijuk A, Brázdilová L, et al. The judgement of biases included in the category "other bias" in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: a systematic survey. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):77. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0718-8
Babic A, Tokalic R, Amílcar Silva Cunha J, et al. Assessments of attrition bias in Cochrane systematic reviews are highly inconsistent and thus hindering trial comparability. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):76. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0717-9
Barcot O, Boric M, Dosenovic S, Poklepovic Pericic T, Cavar M, Puljak L. Risk of bias assessments for blinding of participants and personnel in Cochrane reviews were frequently inadequate. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;113:104-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.05.012
Barcot O, Boric M, Poklepovic Pericic T, et al. Risk of bias judgments for random sequence generation in Cochrane systematic reviews were frequently not in line with Cochrane Handbook. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):170. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0804-y
Propadalo I, Tranfic M, Vuka I, Barcot O, Pericic TP, Puljak L. In Cochrane reviews, risk of bias assessments for allocation concealment were frequently not in line with Cochrane's Handbook guidance. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;106:10-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.10.002
Saric F, Barcot O, Puljak L. Risk of bias assessments for selective reporting were inadequate in the majority of Cochrane reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;112:53-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.007
Babic A, Vuka I, Saric F, et al. Overall bias methods and their use in sensitivity analysis of Cochrane reviews were not consistent. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;119:57-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.11.008
Barcot O, Dosenovic S, Boric M, et al. Assessing risk of bias judgments for blinding of outcome assessors in Cochrane reviews. J Comp Effect Res. 2020;9(8):585-593. https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2019-0181
Marusic MF, Fidahic M, Cepeha CM, Farcas LG, Tseke A, Puljak L. Methodological tools and sensitivity analysis for assessing quality or risk of bias used in systematic reviews published in the high-impact anesthesiology journals. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):121. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-00966-4
Barcot O, Boric M, Dosenovic S, et al. Adequacy of risk of bias assessment in surgical vs non-surgical trials in Cochrane reviews: a methodological study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20:240. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01123-7
Murad MH, Asi N, Alsawas M, Alahdab F. New evidence pyramid. Evid Based Med. 2016;21(4):125-127. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2016-110401
da Costa BR, Beckett B, Diaz A, et al. Effect of standardized training on the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool: a prospective study. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0441-7
Higgins JPT. Table 8.5.d: criteria for judging risk of bias in the ‘Risk of bias’ assessment tool. In: Higgins J, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, New York, USA; 2011. https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/index.htm#chapter_8/table_8_4_a_a_common_classification_scheme_for_bias.htm (Accessed September 28, 2020)
Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2015;38(6):506-514.
Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, Group C. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg. 2011;9(8):672-677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2011.09.004
Takiguchi S, Murakami K, Miyazaki Y, et al. Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer using outermost layer lymph node dissection technique. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech. 2015;1:S151-S252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4136-7
Puljak L, Ramic I, Arriola Naharro C, et al. Cochrane risk of bias tool was used inadequately in the majority of non-Cochrane systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;123:114-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.03.019
Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898