Recommendations by Cochrane Review Groups for assessment of the risk of bias in studies.
Recommendations by Cochrane Review Groups for assessment of the risk of bias in studies.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1471-2288-8-22
复制
发表时间：
2008-04-21
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Gøtzsche PC
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lundh A;Gøtzsche PC
在系统评价中，评估单个研究的偏倚风险可以使用单个成分或通过总体评分总结研究质量来完成。我们检查了50个Cochrane综述组的作者的指导，这些综述组关注临床干预措施，以推荐研究的方法学质量评估。41个评审小组（82%）建议使用组件进行质量评估，9个使用量表。所有推荐成分的组都推荐评估分配的隐蔽性，而只有两个推荐量表的组（P < 0.0001）。35组（70%）推荐序列生成评估，21组（42%）推荐意向治疗分析评估。只有28组（56%）对在综述中分析性地使用研究质量评估提出了具体建议，其中灵敏度分析、质量作为纳入阈值和亚组分析是最常用的推荐方法。推荐的量表在个别项目中存在问题，一些推荐组成部分的小组推荐的项目与质量评估中的偏差无关。我们发现一些小组的建议没有基于经验证据，许多小组没有关于如何在评审中使用质量评估的建议。我们建议所有Cochrane评论小组在给作者的指导中参考《Cochrane干预措施系统评论手册》，这是基于证据的，并且他们自己的指南保持在最低限度，只描述如何处理特定于他们领域的方法学主题。
Assessing the risk of bias in individual studies in a systematic review can be done using individual components or by summarizing the study quality in an overall score. We examined the instructions to authors of the 50 Cochrane Review Groups that focus on clinical interventions for recommendations on methodological quality assessment of studies. Forty-one of the review groups (82%) recommended quality assessment using components and nine using a scale. All groups recommending components recommended to assess concealment of allocation, compared to only two of the groups recommending scales (P < 0.0001). Thirty-five groups (70%) recommended assessment of sequence generation and 21 groups (42%) recommended assessment of intention-to-treat analysis. Only 28 groups (56%) had specific recommendations for using the quality assessment of studies analytically in reviews, with sensitivity analysis, quality as an inclusion threshold and subgroup analysis being the most commonly recommended methods. The scales recommended had problems in the individual items and some of the groups recommending components recommended items not related to bias in their quality assessment. We found that recommendations by some groups were not based on empirical evidence and many groups had no recommendations on how to use the quality assessment in reviews. We suggest that all Cochrane Review Groups refer to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, which is evidence-based, in their instructions to authors and that their own guidelines are kept to a minimum and describe only how methodological topics that are specific to their fields should be handled.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
120.7
作者：
Jadad, AR;Cook, DJ;Moher, D
通讯作者：
Moher, D
影响因子：
120.7
作者：
Jüni, P;Witschi, A;Egger, M
通讯作者：
Egger, M
DOI：
10.1016/s0197-2456(99)00026-4
发表时间：
1999-10-01
期刊：
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS
影响因子：
--
作者：
Clark, HD;Wells, GA;Laupacis, A
通讯作者：
Laupacis, A
影响因子：
105.7
作者：
Glasziou, P;Vandenbroucke, J;Chalmers, I
通讯作者：
Chalmers, I
DOI：
10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4
发表时间：
1996-02-01
期刊：
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS
影响因子：
--
作者：
Jadad, AR;Moore, RA;McQuay, HJ
通讯作者：
McQuay, HJ