Naslov
The judgement of biases included in the category “other bias” in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: a systematic survey

Autori
Babic, Andrija ; Pijuk, Andela ; Brázdilová, Lucie ; Georgieva, Yuliyana ; Raposo Pereira, Marco António ; Poklepovic Pericic, Tina ; Puljak, Livia

Izvornik
Bmc medical research methodology (1471-2288) 19 (2019), 1; 77-77

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

Ključne riječi
Cochrane ; Other bias inconsistency ; Risk of bias ; Systematic review

Sažetak
BACKGROUND: Clinical decisions are made based on Cochrane reviews, but the implementation of results of evidence syntheses such as Cochrane reviews is problematic if the evidence is not prepared consistently. All systematic reviews should assess the risk of bias (RoB) in included studies, and in Cochrane reviews, this is done by using Cochrane RoB tool. However, the tool is not necessarily applied according to the instructions. In this study, we aimed to determine the types of bias and their corresponding judgements noted in the 'other bias' domain of Cochrane RoB tool. METHODS: We analyzed Cochrane reviews that included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and extracted data regarding 'other bias' from the RoB table and accompanying support for the judgment. We categorized different types of other bias. RESULTS: We analyzed 768 Cochrane reviews that included 11, 369 RCTs. There were 602 (78%) Cochrane reviews that had 'other bias' domain in the RoB tool, and they included a total of 7811 RCTs. In the RoB table of 337 Cochrane reviews for at least one of the included trials it was indicated that no other bias was found and supporting explanations were inconsistently judged as low, unclear or high RoB. In the 524 Cochrane reviews that described various sources of other bias, there were 5762 individual types of explanations which we categorized into 31 groups. The judgments of the same supporting explanations were highly inconsistent. We found numerous other inconsistencies in reporting of sources of other bias in Cochrane reviews. CONCLUSION: Cochrane authors mention a wide range of sources of other bias in the RoB tool and they inconsistently judge the same supporting explanations. Inconsistency in appraising risk of other bias hinders reliability and comparability of Cochrane systematic reviews. Discrepant and erroneous judgments of bias in evidence synthesis may hinder implementation of evidence in routine clinical practice and reduce confidence in otherwise trustworthy sources of information. These results can help authors of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews to gain insight into various sources of other bias that can be found in trials, and also to help them avoid mistakes that were recognized in published Cochrane reviews.

Izvorni jezik
Engleski

Znanstvena područja
Javno zdravstvo i zdravstvena zaštita

POVEZANOST RADA