Tools for assessing risk of reporting biases in studies and syntheses of studies: a systematic review.
Tools for assessing risk of reporting biases in studies and syntheses of studies: a systematic review.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019703
复制
发表时间：
2018-03-14
期刊：
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
Higgins JPT
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Page MJ;McKenzie JE;Higgins JPT
目前存在几种用于评估报告偏差风险的量表、清单和基于领域的工具，但尚不清楚它们在内容和指导方面有多大差异。我们对这些工具的内容和测量特性进行了系统的回顾。我们在奥维德MEDLINE、奥维德Embase、奥维德PsycINFO和Google Scholar中检索了从开始到2017年2月的潜在相关文章。一位作者筛选了所有标题、摘要和全文文章，并收集了有关工具特征的数据。我们确定了18种工具，其中包括对报告偏倚风险的评估。评估的报告偏倚类型（例如，选择性发表导致的偏倚、选择性未报告导致的偏倚）和评估水平（例如，对于整个研究，研究中的特定结果或特定的研究综合）的工具各不相同。由于选择性发表（例如，漏斗图不对称的证据，使用非全面检索），在工具中使用各种标准将合成指定为具有“高”偏倚风险。然而，对大多数这些工具而言，在总体判断中每项标准的相对权重并不明确。用于评估因选择性不报告而导致偏倚风险的工具指导用户在未报告结果的情况下将研究或研究中的结果评估为偏倚“高”风险。然而，在缺少未报告结果的综合中评估相应的偏倚风险超出了大多数这些工具的范围。有五种工具的评估者间协议估计数。现有的评估报告偏倚风险的工具在范围、对得出偏倚风险判断的指导和计量特性方面存在若干局限性。开发和评价一种新的综合工具有助于克服目前的局限性。
Several scales, checklists and domain-based tools for assessing risk of reporting biases exist, but it is unclear how much they vary in content and guidance. We conducted a systematic review of the content and measurement properties of such tools. We searched for potentially relevant articles in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid PsycINFO and Google Scholar from inception to February 2017. One author screened all titles, abstracts and full text articles, and collected data on tool characteristics. We identified 18 tools that include an assessment of the risk of reporting bias. Tools varied in regard to the type of reporting bias assessed (eg, bias due to selective publication, bias due to selective non-reporting), and the level of assessment (eg, for the study as a whole, a particular result within a study or a particular synthesis of studies). Various criteria are used across tools to designate a synthesis as being at ‘high’ risk of bias due to selective publication (eg, evidence of funnel plot asymmetry, use of non-comprehensive searches). However, the relative weight assigned to each criterion in the overall judgement is unclear for most of these tools. Tools for assessing risk of bias due to selective non-reporting guide users to assess a study, or an outcome within a study, as ‘high’ risk of bias if no results are reported for an outcome. However, assessing the corresponding risk of bias in a synthesis that is missing the non-reported outcomes is outside the scope of most of these tools. Inter-rater agreement estimates were available for five tools. There are several limitations of existing tools for assessing risk of reporting biases, in terms of their scope, guidance for reaching risk of bias judgements and measurement properties. Development and evaluation of a new, comprehensive tool could help overcome present limitations.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
7.2
作者：
Guyatt, Gordon H.;Oxman, Andrew D.;Schuenemann, Holger J.
通讯作者：
Schuenemann, Holger J.
影响因子：
6.3
作者：
Downs, SH;Black, N
通讯作者：
Black, N
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Armijo-Olivo S;Ospina M;da Costa BR;Egger M;Saltaji H;Fuentes J;Ha C;Cummings GG
通讯作者：
Cummings GG
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.b4012
发表时间：
2009-10-19
期刊：
BMJ (Clinical research ed.)
影响因子：
--
作者：
Hartling L;Ospina M;Liang Y;Dryden DM;Hooton N;Krebs Seida J;Klassen TP
通讯作者：
Klassen TP
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Haddaway NR;Collins AM;Coughlin D;Kirk S
通讯作者：
Kirk S