There were large discrepancies in risk of bias tool judgments when a randomized controlled trial appeared in more than one systematic review

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Jordan-Cole, Vanessa en
dc.contributor.author Lensen, SF en
dc.contributor.author Farquhar, Cynthia en
dc.date.accessioned 2017-09-06T01:19:36Z en
dc.date.issued 2017-01 en
dc.identifier.citation Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 81:72-76 Jan 2017 en
dc.identifier.issn 0895-4356 en
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/2292/35517 en
dc.description.abstract To assess the consistency in risk of bias (RoB) judgments across Cochrane reviews for studies appearing in more than one Cochrane review in the field of subfertility.We retrieved any study that had been used more than once in systematic reviews present on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in the area of subfertility. We then retrieved the recorded RoB assessments for these studies and looked at the consistency of judgments made between different authoring teams on the same trials.From the 156 bias judgments that were completed by at least two separate groups of authors, 45% of these judgments differed. For the domains of random sequence generation and incomplete outcome data, there was reasonably high level of agreement (71% and 79%, respectively). However, for the domain of blinding, agreement was reached in only 35% of cases.This assessment of how consistently the RoB is being applied in Cochrane reviews has shown that, especially in some domains, there are large discrepancies in how RoB is being evaluated. Further work needs to be undertaken to improve the application of this tool. en
dc.format.medium Print-Electronic en
dc.language eng en
dc.publisher Elsevier en
dc.relation.ispartofseries Journal of Clinical Epidemiology en
dc.rights Items in ResearchSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated. Previously published items are made available in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. en
dc.rights.uri https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/docs/uoa-docs/rights.htm en
dc.subject Humans en
dc.subject Infertility en
dc.subject Judgment en
dc.subject Bias (Epidemiology) en
dc.subject Review Literature as Topic en
dc.subject Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic en
dc.title There were large discrepancies in risk of bias tool judgments when a randomized controlled trial appeared in more than one systematic review en
dc.type Journal Article en
dc.identifier.doi 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.08.012 en
pubs.begin-page 72 en
pubs.volume 81 en
dc.rights.holder Copyright: Elsevier en
dc.identifier.pmid 27622779 en
pubs.end-page 76 en
dc.rights.accessrights http://purl.org/eprint/accessRights/RestrictedAccess en
pubs.subtype Review en
pubs.elements-id 541857 en
pubs.org-id Medical and Health Sciences en
pubs.org-id School of Medicine en
pubs.org-id Obstetrics and Gynaecology en
dc.identifier.eissn 1878-5921 en
pubs.record-created-at-source-date 2017-09-06 en
pubs.dimensions-id 27622779 en


Files in this item

There are no files associated with this item.

Find Full text

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Share

Search ResearchSpace


Browse

Statistics