Risk of bias assessment tools used in non-Cochrane reviews of interventions: a meta-epidemiologic study
Background: Biases can lead to under-estimation or over-estimation of the true intervention effect. There are many tools for assessing the risk of bias for intervention studies. Cochrane developed the Risk of Bias (RoB) tool, which was updated to its second version (RoB 2) in 2019. Other available tools for RoB assessment are the Physiotherapy Evidence Database2 (PEDro) scale, Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Randomized Controlled Trials, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ; Viswanathan) and Appraisal tools for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS; Downes), just to name a few. All of these tools focus on the allocation, random sequences, blinding, incomplete data and selective reporting. The certainty of the evidence is the extent to which we can be confident that what the research tells us about a particular treatment effect is likely to be accurate. Cochrane recommended the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing to the certainty of the evidence, classifying the evidence of high certainty, moderate certainty, low certainty or very-low certainty. Whether Cochrane recommendations for RoB and certainty of the evidence assessment, as well as RoB tools used in non-Cochrane reviews of interventions, remain unknown.
Objectives: To identify the RoB tool used in non-Cochrane systematic reviews (NCSRs) of interventions and to assess the usage of GRADE approach for certainty of the evidence
Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study. We searched in MEDLINE and EMBASE for completed NCSRs of any intervention published during 2022. Only systematic reviews for intervention were included. Cochrane systematic reviews and protocols were excluded. We did not apply any language, topic or country restrictions. For the included NCSR we extracted information regarding country, journal, use of any RoB tool, RoB tool used and use of GRADE approach. Data were extracted by one reviewer and validated by the lead author.
Results: We will show the complete results at the London Colloquium.
Conclusions: We will show conclusions at the London Colloquium.