Penny Whiting1, Jelena Savović2, Julian P T Higgins3, Deborah M Caldwell4, Barnaby C Reeves5, Beverley Shea6, Philippa Davies2, Jos Kleijnen7, Rachel Churchill4. 1. School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, UK - The National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK - Kleijnen Systematic Reviews, Unit 6, Escrick Business Park, York, UK. 2. School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, UK - The National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK. 3. School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, UK - Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, UK. 4. School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, UK. 5. School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, UK. 6. Community Information and Epidemiological Technologies Institute of Population Health, Ottawa, Canada. 7. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews, Unit 6, Escrick Business Park, York, UK - School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop ROBIS, a new tool for assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews (rather than in primary studies). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We used four-stage approach to develop ROBIS: define the scope, review the evidence base, hold a face-to-face meeting, and refine the tool through piloting. RESULTS: ROBIS is currently aimed at four broad categories of reviews mainly within health care settings: interventions, diagnosis, prognosis, and etiology. The target audience of ROBIS is primarily guideline developers, authors of overviews of systematic reviews ("reviews of reviews"), and review authors who might want to assess or avoid risk of bias in their reviews. The tool is completed in three phases: 1) assess relevance (optional), 2) identify concerns with the review process, and 3) judge risk of bias. Phase 2 covers four domains through which bias may be introduced into a systematic review: 1) study eligibility criteria; 2) identification and selection of studies; 3) data collection and study appraisal; and 4) synthesis and findings. Phase 3 assesses the overall risk of bias in the interpretation of review findings and whether this considered limitations identified in any of the phase 2 domains. Signaling questions are included to help judge concerns with the review process (phase 2) and the overall risk of bias in the review (phase 3); these questions flag aspects of review design related to the potential for bias and aim to help assessors judge risk of bias in the review process, results, and conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: ROBIS is the first rigorously developed tool designed specifically to assess the risk of bias in systematic reviews.
OBJECTIVE: To develop ROBIS, a new tool for assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews (rather than in primary studies). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We used four-stage approach to develop ROBIS: define the scope, review the evidence base, hold a face-to-face meeting, and refine the tool through piloting. RESULTS: ROBIS is currently aimed at four broad categories of reviews mainly within health care settings: interventions, diagnosis, prognosis, and etiology. The target audience of ROBIS is primarily guideline developers, authors of overviews of systematic reviews ("reviews of reviews"), and review authors who might want to assess or avoid risk of bias in their reviews. The tool is completed in three phases: 1) assess relevance (optional), 2) identify concerns with the review process, and 3) judge risk of bias. Phase 2 covers four domains through which bias may be introduced into a systematic review: 1) study eligibility criteria; 2) identification and selection of studies; 3) data collection and study appraisal; and 4) synthesis and findings. Phase 3 assesses the overall risk of bias in the interpretation of review findings and whether this considered limitations identified in any of the phase 2 domains. Signaling questions are included to help judge concerns with the review process (phase 2) and the overall risk of bias in the review (phase 3); these questions flag aspects of review design related to the potential for bias and aim to help assessors judge risk of bias in the review process, results, and conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: ROBIS is the first rigorously developed tool designed specifically to assess the risk of bias in systematic reviews.
Authors: Luca Fiorillo; Gabriele Cervino; Marco Matarese; Cesare D'Amico; Giovanni Surace; Valeria Paduano; Maria Teresa Fiorillo; Antonio Moschella; Alessia La Bruna; Giovanni Luca Romano; Riccardo Laudicella; Sergio Baldari; Marco Cicciù Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-04-30 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Marco Cicciù; Gabriele Cervino; Luca Fiorillo; Cesare D'Amico; Giacomo Oteri; Giuseppe Troiano; Khrystyna Zhurakivska; Lorenzo Lo Muzio; Alan Scott Herford; Salvatore Crimi; Alberto Bianchi; Dario Di Stasio; Rosario Rullo; Gregorio Laino; Luigi Laino Journal: Dent J (Basel) Date: 2019-09-04
Authors: Luca Fiorillo; Gabriele Cervino; Pablo Galindo-Moreno; Alan Scott Herford; Gianrico Spagnuolo; Marco Cicciù Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2021-01-06 Impact factor: 3.411