Methodologic quality and risk-of-bias in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions: a review of methods release_a3ksekeklrhadhuvgwdwidj3mu

by Cristine Stefani, Liliana Rezende, Lia Rosana Honnef, Luciana Oliveira, Nathan Da Cruz Lopes, Carla Massignan, Graziela De Luca Canto, Júlia Meller Dias de Oliveira

Published in Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare by Escola Bahiana de Medicina e Saude Publica.

2022   e4067

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the characteristics of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions that assessed or did not methodologic quality/risk-of-bias of included studies. Additionally, to analyze methodologic features of those assessing the methodologic quality/risk-of-bias. METHODS: PubMed database was searched. From 25,571 systematic reviews retrieved, a random sample of 1,025 was screened. Frequencies were used to describe outcomes. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regressions were performed to test the associations with methodologic quality/risk-of-bias results assessment. In a second analysis, systematic reviews that assessed methodologic quality/risk of bias were dichotomized according to the design of included studies (randomized clinical trials-only versus non-randomized studies of intervention or a combination of both). RESULTS: 303 systematic reviews were fully analyzed. Methodologic quality/risk of bias was assessed by 278 (92%). Methodologic quality/risk-of-bias assessment was associated with a higher number of databases searched (>4, P= 0.008), the presence of meta-analysis (P= 0.005), and the design of included studies (randomized clinical trials-only, P= 0.042). The chance of using a suitable tool and a tool designed for risk-of-bias assessment rather than methodologic quality was higher for randomized clinical trials-only systematic reviews (P< 0.05). The most used tool was Cochrane's RoB Tool without a clear studies' overall risk classification system. CONCLUSION: methodologic quality/risk-of-bias assessment was associated with included studies' design (randomized clinical trials-only), a meta-analysis of data, and the number of databases searched (>4). The most used tool was Cochrane's RoB Tool, with no clearly defined rating system. Methodologic quality/risk-of-bias assessment methods description, results, and impacts on meta-analysis, the certainty of evidence, and systematic reviews' results are still to be consistently addressed.  
In application/xml+jats format

Archived Files and Locations

application/pdf   1.3 MB
file_riotyjddlvfdbjjc6yha4owbwy
www5.bahiana.edu.br (publisher)
web.archive.org (webarchive)
Read Archived PDF
Preserved and Accessible
Type  article-journal
Stage   published
Date   2022-05-18
Journal Metadata
Open Access Publication
In DOAJ
Not in Keepers Registry
ISSN-L:  2675-021X
Work Entity
access all versions, variants, and formats of this works (eg, pre-prints)
Catalog Record
Revision: 72ec3774-898f-4b5c-9107-b34cdf346f3f
API URL: JSON