Pretraga

Pretražite po imenu i prezimenu autora, mentora, urednika, prevoditelja

Napredna pretraga

Pregled bibliografske jedinice broj: 1065284

Overall bias methods and their use in sensitivity analysis of Cochrane reviews were not consistent

Babic, Andrija; Vuka, Ivana; Saric, Frano; Proloscic, Ivona; Slapnicar, Ema; Cavar, Jakica; Poklepovic Pericic, Tina; Pieper, Dawid; Puljak, Livia
Overall bias methods and their use in sensitivity analysis of Cochrane reviews were not consistent // Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 119 (2020), 57-64 doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.11.008 (međunarodna recenzija, članak, znanstveni)

CROSBI ID: 1065284 Za ispravke kontaktirajte CROSBI podršku putem web obrasca

Naslov
Overall bias methods and their use in sensitivity analysis of Cochrane reviews were not consistent

Autori
Babic, Andrija ; Vuka, Ivana ; Saric, Frano ; Proloscic, Ivona ; Slapnicar, Ema ; Cavar, Jakica ; Poklepovic Pericic, Tina ; Pieper, Dawid ; Puljak, Livia

Izvornik
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (0895-4356) 119 (2020); 57-64

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

Ključne riječi
Cochrane ; Methodology ; Overall bias ; Risk of bias ; Sensitivity analysis ; Systematic review

Sažetak
Objective: The objective of the study was to analyze methods of assessing "overall bias" in Cochrane reviews of interventions published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and sensitivity analyses related to overall risk of bias (RoB). Study design and setting: From Cochrane reviews published within 3 years, from July 2015 to June 2018, we extracted data regarding methods of judging overall bias for a single trial, as well as details regarding methods used in frequency of RoB in sensitivity analyses. Results: Of the 1, 452 analyzed Cochrane reviews, 409 mentioned assessment of overall RoB on a study level. In 107 reviews, authors clearly specified key domains that determined the overall RoB, whereas in the remaining reviews, assessment of overall bias was not in line with the Cochrane Handbook. Among 268 Cochrane reviews that had any RoB- related sensitivity analysis, in 56 (21%) reviews, the authors reported a significant change for at least one outcome compared with the initial analysis. Conclusion: Highly heterogeneous approaches to summarizing overall RoB on a study level and using RoB for sensitivity analyses may yield inconsistent and incomparable results across Cochrane reviews.

Izvorni jezik
Engleski

Znanstvena područja
Javno zdravstvo i zdravstvena zaštita



POVEZANOST RADA

Ustanove:
Medicinski fakultet, Split,
Hrvatsko katoličko sveučilište, Zagreb

Profili:

Avatar Url Livia Puljak (autor)

Avatar Url Tina Poklepović Peričić (autor)

Poveznice na cjeloviti tekst rada:

doi

Citiraj ovu publikaciju:

Babic, Andrija; Vuka, Ivana; Saric, Frano; Proloscic, Ivona; Slapnicar, Ema; Cavar, Jakica; Poklepovic Pericic, Tina; Pieper, Dawid; Puljak, Livia
Overall bias methods and their use in sensitivity analysis of Cochrane reviews were not consistent // Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 119 (2020), 57-64 doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.11.008 (međunarodna recenzija, članak, znanstveni)
Babic, A., Vuka, I., Saric, F., Proloscic, I., Slapnicar, E., Cavar, J., Poklepovic Pericic, T., Pieper, D. & Puljak, L. (2020) Overall bias methods and their use in sensitivity analysis of Cochrane reviews were not consistent. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 119, 57-64 doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.11.008.
@article{article, author = {Babic, Andrija and Vuka, Ivana and Saric, Frano and Proloscic, Ivona and Slapnicar, Ema and Cavar, Jakica and Poklepovic Pericic, Tina and Pieper, Dawid and Puljak, Livia}, year = {2020}, pages = {57-64}, DOI = {10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.11.008}, keywords = {Cochrane, Methodology, Overall bias, Risk of bias, Sensitivity analysis, Systematic review}, journal = {Journal of Clinical Epidemiology}, doi = {10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.11.008}, volume = {119}, issn = {0895-4356}, title = {Overall bias methods and their use in sensitivity analysis of Cochrane reviews were not consistent}, keyword = {Cochrane, Methodology, Overall bias, Risk of bias, Sensitivity analysis, Systematic review} }
@article{article, author = {Babic, Andrija and Vuka, Ivana and Saric, Frano and Proloscic, Ivona and Slapnicar, Ema and Cavar, Jakica and Poklepovic Pericic, Tina and Pieper, Dawid and Puljak, Livia}, year = {2020}, pages = {57-64}, DOI = {10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.11.008}, keywords = {Cochrane, Methodology, Overall bias, Risk of bias, Sensitivity analysis, Systematic review}, journal = {Journal of Clinical Epidemiology}, doi = {10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.11.008}, volume = {119}, issn = {0895-4356}, title = {Overall bias methods and their use in sensitivity analysis of Cochrane reviews were not consistent}, keyword = {Cochrane, Methodology, Overall bias, Risk of bias, Sensitivity analysis, Systematic review} }

Časopis indeksira:


  • Current Contents Connect (CCC)
  • Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC)
    • Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXP)
    • SCI-EXP, SSCI i/ili A&HCI
  • Scopus
  • MEDLINE

Citati:

    Altmetrijski pokazatelji:


    Podijeli:





    Contrast
    Increase Font
    Decrease Font
    Dyslexic Font
    CROSBI koristi kolačiće (cookies) kako bi poboljšao funkcionalnost stranice.