Considerations from the risk of bias perspective for updating Cochrane reviews

نویسندگان

  • Alain D. Mayhew
  • Monisha Kabir
  • Mohammed T. Ansari
چکیده

Authors of Cochrane reviews are expected to update their reviews every 2 years. The updating process helps to ensure that reviews are current and include recent evidence. However, the updating process is time-consuming for authors, particularly when Cochrane methods evolve and authors are required to revisit some of the originally included studies.The Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' tool is a mandatory component of Cochrane reviews, providing an assessment of the potential biases of included studies. The tool has been modified most recently in 2011, and the expectation is that new versions will continue to be produced and utilised in all Cochrane reviews. In this commentary we discuss, in the context of updating scenarios that are likely to be encountered, the potential options systematic review authors may have recourse to when the Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' tool has been modified between the original review and its update. We recommend that authors who are updating reviews should revise their original assessments of included studies using the most recent version of the risk of bias tool. Despite the increased workload, use of the most recent version of the tool facilitates consistency of methods and reporting both across and within reviews, and ensures currency to the methodological rigour.

برای دانلود رایگان متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

A multicomponent decision tool for prioritising the updating of systematic reviews.

Evidence evolves as new research becomes available, and thus systematic reviews should be kept up to date to maintain their relevance and validity. However, the decision to update a systematic review should be made carefully because updating is potentially resource intensive, and updating too soon could introduce bias. In contrast, if reviews are not updated frequently enough, doctors and polic...

متن کامل

Evaluation of the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized clinical trials: overview of published comments and analysis of user practice in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized clinical trials was introduced in 2008 and has frequently been commented on and used in systematic reviews. We wanted to evaluate the tool by reviewing published comments on its strengths and challenges and by describing and analysing how the tool is applied to both Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews. METHODS A review of publi...

متن کامل

Few systematic reviews exist documenting the extent of bias: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE To summarize the evidence concerning bias and confounding in conducting systematic reviews (SRs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Literature was identified through searching the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PsycINFO until November 2006, and the authors' files. Studies were included if they were SRs of bias that can occur while conducting a SR. Risk of bias in the SRs was appraised using the ...

متن کامل

Incorporation of assessments of risk of bias of primary studies in systematic reviews of randomised trials: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE 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. DESIGN A cross-sectional review. SAMPLE 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). ...

متن کامل

Reporting, handling and assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant data in systematic reviews: a methodological survey

OBJECTIVES To describe how systematic reviewers are reporting missing data for dichotomous outcomes, handling them in the analysis and assessing the risk of associated bias. METHODS We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for systematic reviews of randomised trials published in 2010, and reporting a meta-analysis of a dichotomous outcome. We randomly selected 98 Co...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

عنوان ژورنال:

دوره 4  شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2015