The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

By C. Bias. 2011

6,388 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7840c6b90fd20dcb290708f7816b099ce54e48f5

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Resilience training in the workplace from 2003 to 2014: A systematic review (2015, methodology): “Methodological rigour was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s assessment tool (Higgins et al., 2011).”
Ferrous Sulfate Supplementation Causes Significant Gastrointestinal Side-Effects in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2015, unknown): “Risk of bias in individual studies was assessed independently by two co-authors based upon the Cochrane Collaboration’s Tool [36].”
The Efficacy of Multi-component Positive Psychology Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (2020, methodology): “Studies were 1 3 included based on the following criteria: (1) studies were RCTs; (2) studies were administered to adults in clinical and non-clinical populations; (3) interventions were comprised of at least two positive activities and two modules that were explicitly based on strategies aiming at ”
Effects of Brief Mindfulness-Based Interventions on Health-Related Outcomes: a Systematic Review (2019, unknown): “The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) (Higgins and Green 2008a) approach was used in combination with the Cochrane risk of bias tool (Higgins et al. 2011).”
Association of hydroxyethyl starch administration with mortality and acute kidney injury in critically ill patients requiring volume resuscitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2013, unknown): “Berard et al,26 1995 GI bleeding 60 (16) NR NR HES 146 GEL 153”