Recommendations for assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews of health-care interventions

被引:136
|
作者
Viswanathan, Meera [1 ]
Patnode, Carrie D. [2 ]
Berkman, Nancy D. [1 ]
Bass, Eric B. [3 ]
Chang, Stephanie [4 ]
Hartling, Lisa [5 ]
Murad, M. Hassan [6 ]
Treadwell, Jonathan R. [7 ]
Kane, Robert L. [8 ]
机构
[1] RTI Int, RTI Int Univ North Carolina Chapel Hill Eviden Ba, Res Triangle Pk, NC 27709 USA
[2] Kaiser Permanente, Kaiser Permanente Res Affiliates Evidence Based P, Ctr Hlth Res, Portland, OR USA
[3] Johns Hopkins Univ, Evidence Based Practice Ctr, Baltimore, MD USA
[4] Agcy Healthcare Res & Qual, Ctr Evidence & Practice Improvement, Rockville, MD USA
[5] Univ Alberta, Evidence Based Practice Ctr, Edmonton, AB, Canada
[6] Mayo Clin, Evidence Based Practice Ctr, Rochester, MN USA
[7] ECRI Inst, Evidence Based Practice Ctr, Plymouth Meeting, PA USA
[8] Univ Minnesota, Evidence Based Practice Ctr, Minneapolis, MN USA
基金
美国医疗保健研究与质量局;
关键词
Risk-of-bias guidance; Critical appraisal; Systematic reviews; Meta-analyses; Health-care interventions; Evidence-based practice; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIALS; CRITICAL-APPRAISAL; QUALITY; TOOL; METAANALYSES; AMSTAR; CREDIBILITY; STRENGTH;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.004
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Objectives: Risk-of-bias assessment is a central component of systematic reviews, but little conclusive empirical evidence exists on the validity of such assessments. In the context of such uncertainty, we present pragmatic recommendations that promote transparency and reproducibility in processes, address methodological advances in the risk-of-bias assessment, and can be applied consistently across review topics. Study Design and Setting: Epidemiological study design principles; available empirical evidence, risk-of-bias tools, and guidance; and workgroup consensus. Results: We developed recommendations for assessing the risk of bias of studies of health-care interventions specific to framing the focus and scope of risk-of-bias assessment; selecting the risk-of-bias categories; choosing assessment instruments; and conducting, analyzing, and presenting results of risk-of-bias assessments. Key recommendations include transparency and reproducibility of judgments, separating risk of bias from other constructs such as applicability and precision, and evaluating the risk of bias per outcome. We recommend against certain past practices, such as focusing on reporting quality, relying solely on study design or numerical quality scores, and automatically downgrading for industry sponsorship. Conclusion: Risk-of-bias assessment remains a challenging but essential step in systematic reviews. We presented standards to promote transparency of judgments. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:26 / 34
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Assessing risk of bias in studies that evaluate health care interventions: recommendations in the misinformation age
    Page, Matthew J.
    Boutron, Isabelle
    Hansen, Camilla
    Altman, Douglas G.
    Hrobjartsson, Asbjorn
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2018, 97 : 133 - 136
  • [2] SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS - REPORTING, UPDATING, AND CORRECTING SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS OF THE EFFECTS OF HEALTH-CARE
    CHALMERS, I
    HAYNES, B
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1994, 309 (6958): : 862 - 865
  • [3] Assessing the methodological quality and risk of bias of systematic reviews: primer for authors of overviews of systematic reviews
    Lunny, Carole
    Kanji, Salmaan
    Thabet, Pierre
    Haidich, Anna-Bettina
    Bougioukas, Konstantinos, I
    Pieper, Dawid
    [J]. BMJ MEDICINE, 2024, 3 (01):
  • [4] Risk of bias tools in systematic reviews of health interventions: an analysis of PROSPERO-registered protocols
    Farrah, Kelly
    Young, Kelsey
    Tunis, Matthew C.
    Zhao, Linlu
    [J]. SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2019, 8 (01)
  • [5] Risk of bias tools in systematic reviews of health interventions: an analysis of PROSPERO-registered protocols
    Kelly Farrah
    Kelsey Young
    Matthew C. Tunis
    Linlu Zhao
    [J]. Systematic Reviews, 8
  • [6] Research Techniques Made Simple: Assessing Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews
    Drucker, Aaron M.
    Fleming, Patrick
    Chan, An-Wen
    [J]. JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE DERMATOLOGY, 2016, 136 (11) : E109 - E114
  • [7] Identifying systematic reviews of the adverse effects of health care interventions
    Golder S.
    McIntosh H.M.
    Loke Y.
    [J]. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6 (1)
  • [8] Health Literacy Interventions in cancer care: A review of systematic reviews
    Jeitani, C.
    Van den Broucke, S.
    Leemans, C.
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2023, 33
  • [9] Are multifaceted interventions more effective than single-component interventions in changing health-care professionals' behaviours? An overview of systematic reviews
    Squires, Janet E.
    Sullivan, Katrina
    Eccles, Martin P.
    Worswick, Julia
    Grimshaw, Jeremy M.
    [J]. IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE, 2014, 9
  • [10] Assessing equity in systematic reviews: realising the recommendations of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health
    Tugwell, Peter
    Petticrew, Mark
    Kristjansson, Elizabeth
    Welch, Vivian
    Ueffing, Erin
    Waters, Elizabeth
    Bonnefoy, Josiane
    Morgan, Antony
    Doohan, Emma
    Kelly, Michael P.
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2010, 341 : 873 - 877