Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

We examined how assessments of risk of bias of primary studies are carried out and incorporated into the statistical analysis and overall findings of a systematic review.A cross-sectional review.We assessed 200 systematic reviews of randomised trials published between January and March 2012; Cochrane (n=100), non-Cochrane (Database of Reviews of Effects) (n=100).Our primary outcome was a descriptive analysis of how assessments of risk of bias are carried out, the methods used, and the extent to which such assessments were incorporated into the statistical analysis and overall review findings.While Cochrane reviews routinely reported the method of risk of bias assessment and presented their results either in text or table format, 20% of non-Cochrane reviews failed to report the method used and 39% did not present the assessment results. Where it was possible to evaluate the individual results of the risk of bias assessment (n=154), 75% (n=116/154) of reviews had ≥1 trial at high risk of bias; the median proportion of trials per review at high risk of bias was 50% (IQR 31% to 89%). Despite this, only 56% (n=65/116) incorporated the risk of bias assessment into the interpretation of the results in the abstract and 41% (n=47/116) (49%; n=40/81 Cochrane and 20%; n=7/35 non-Cochrane) incorporated the risk of bias assessment into the interpretation of the conclusions. Of the 83% (n=166/200) systematic reviews which included a meta-analysis, only 11% (n=19/166) incorporated the risk of bias assessment into the statistical analysis.Cochrane reviews were more likely than non-Cochrane reviews to report how risk of bias assessments of primary studies were carried out; however, both frequently failed to take such assessments into account in the statistical analysis and conclusions of the systematic review.

Original publication

DOI

10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003342

Type

Journal article

Journal

BMJ open

Publication Date

01/2013

Volume

3

Addresses

INSERM, U738, Paris, France.