Andrija Babic1, Ivana Vuka2, Frano Saric3, Ivona Proloscic4, Ema Slapnicar4, Jakica Cavar5, Tina Poklepovic Pericic6, Dawid Pieper7, Livia Puljak8. 1. Institute of Emergency Medicine in Split-Dalmatia County, Split, Croatia. 2. Laboratory for Pain Research, Department of Anatomy, Histology and Embryology, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia. 3. Department of Radiology, University Hospital Split, Split, Croatia. 4. University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia. 5. Department of Neuroscience, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Canada. 6. Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia. 7. Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany. 8. Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and Health Care, Catholic University of Croatia, Zagreb, Croatia. Electronic address: livia.puljak@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to analyze methods of assessing "overall bias" in Cochrane reviews of interventions published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and sensitivity analyses related to overall risk of bias (RoB). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: From Cochrane reviews published within 3 years, from July 2015 to June 2018, we extracted data regarding methods of judging overall bias for a single trial, as well as details regarding methods used in frequency of RoB in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Of the 1,452 analyzed Cochrane reviews, 409 mentioned assessment of overall RoB on a study level. In 107 reviews, authors clearly specified key domains that determined the overall RoB, whereas in the remaining reviews, assessment of overall bias was not in line with the Cochrane Handbook. Among 268 Cochrane reviews that had any RoB-related sensitivity analysis, in 56 (21%) reviews, the authors reported a significant change for at least one outcome compared with the initial analysis. CONCLUSION: Highly heterogeneous approaches to summarizing overall RoB on a study level and using RoB for sensitivity analyses may yield inconsistent and incomparable results across Cochrane reviews.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to analyze methods of assessing "overall bias" in Cochrane reviews of interventions published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and sensitivity analyses related to overall risk of bias (RoB). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: From Cochrane reviews published within 3 years, from July 2015 to June 2018, we extracted data regarding methods of judging overall bias for a single trial, as well as details regarding methods used in frequency of RoB in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Of the 1,452 analyzed Cochrane reviews, 409 mentioned assessment of overall RoB on a study level. In 107 reviews, authors clearly specified key domains that determined the overall RoB, whereas in the remaining reviews, assessment of overall bias was not in line with the Cochrane Handbook. Among 268 Cochrane reviews that had any RoB-related sensitivity analysis, in 56 (21%) reviews, the authors reported a significant change for at least one outcome compared with the initial analysis. CONCLUSION: Highly heterogeneous approaches to summarizing overall RoB on a study level and using RoB for sensitivity analyses may yield inconsistent and incomparable results across Cochrane reviews.
Authors: Dena Zeraatkar; Alana Kohut; Arrti Bhasin; Rita E Morassut; Isabella Churchill; Arnav Gupta; Daeria Lawson; Anna Miroshnychenko; Emily Sirotich; Komal Aryal; Maria Azab; Joseph Beyene; Russell J de Souza Journal: BMJ Nutr Prev Health Date: 2021-12-07
Authors: Lawrence Mbuagbaw; Daeria O Lawson; Livia Puljak; David B Allison; Lehana Thabane Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2020-09-07 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Ognjen Barcot; Matija Boric; Svjetlana Dosenovic; Marija Cavar; Antonia Jelicic Kadic; Tina Poklepovic Pericic; Ivana Vukicevic; Ivana Vuka; Livia Puljak Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 4.615