Naslov
Adequacy of risk of bias assessment in surgical vs non-surgical trials in Cochrane reviews: a methodological study

Autori
Barčot, Ognjen ; Borić, Matija ; Došenović, Svjetlana ; Ćavar, Marija ; Jeličić Kadić, Antonia ; Poklepović Peričić, Tina ; Vukičević, Ivana ; Vuka, Ivana ; Puljak, Livia

Izvornik
Bmc medical research methodology (1471-2288) 20 (2020), 1; 240, 11

Vrsta, podvrsta i kategorija rada
Radovi u časopisima, članak, znanstveni

Ključne riječi
surgery ; risk of bias ; Cochrane ; systematic reviews

Sažetak
Background Bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can lead to underestimation or overestimation of the true effects of interventions. Surgical RCTs may suffer from the risk of bias (RoB) that is avoidable in trials of other interventions, and vice versa. We aimed to compare the adequacy of RoB assessments in surgical versus non-surgical RCTs included in Cochrane reviews and to assess the most common differences in those RoB assessments. Due to specificities of surgical trials, i.e. difficulties associated with blinding of surgical interventions, we hypothesized that assessments of surgical trials may be more adequate, compared to RCTs of non- surgical interventions. Methods This was a methodological study, analyzing methods of published Cochrane systematic reviews. Data were extracted from RoB tables in Cochrane reviews (judgments and accompanying explanatory comment) for the following four RoB domains used in the 2011 Cochrane RoB tool: randomization, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, and blinding of outcome assessors. We defined adequate assessments as those that were in line with instructions from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The prevalence of adequate assessments was compared in surgical versus non-surgical trials. The most common differences in both groups of reviews were presented. Results In 729 analyzed Cochrane reviews, there were 10, 537 included trials. The prevalence of adequate RoB judgments made by Cochrane authors ranged from 87.9, 95%CI (87.3 to 88.6%) for randomization to 70.7, 95%CI (69.8 to 71.5%) for blinding of participants and personnel. For all analyzed RoB domains, the prevalence of adequate RoB domains was higher in surgical trials than in non-surgical trials. For two RoB domains assessing blinding, this difference between surgical and non-surgical trials was statistically significant (P < 0.001), while the difference was not significant for the RoB domain regarding randomization (P = 0.124) and allocation concealment (P = 0.039, β < 0.8). Conclusions RoB judgments were more in line with instructions from the Cochrane Handbook when Cochrane reviews assessed surgical trials, compared to those that analyzed non- surgical interventions. However, further steps are warranted to scrutinize RoB assessment in trials of both surgical and non- surgical interventions.

Izvorni jezik
Engleski

Znanstvena područja
Kliničke medicinske znanosti, Javno zdravstvo i zdravstvena zaštita

POVEZANOST RADA