Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies

By Julian P. T. Higgins, Douglas G. Altman. 2008

4,610 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b42ce09c143962a6f09a55d172f4b8635a624fdd

How researchers see this paper

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

In Economics and Econometrics

1. Douglas G. Altman
2. David Moher
3. K. F. Schulz
4. John P. A. Ioannidis
5. P. Gøtzsche
6. G. Guyatt
7. Holger J. Schünemann
8. J. Brożek

In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

1. David Moher
2. Douglas G. Altman
3. K. F. Schulz
4. Holger J. Schünemann
5. G. Guyatt
6. J. Brożek
7. John P. A. Ioannidis
8. P. Gøtzsche

In Statistics and Probability

1. David Moher
2. Douglas G. Altman
3. K. F. Schulz
4. John P. A. Ioannidis
5. Georgia Salanti
6. Julian P. T. Higgins
7. J. Tetzlaff
8. P. Gøtzsche

Citations in the corpus

• The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009, methodology): “allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting) and a catch-all item called “other sources of bias” (11).”
• Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane reviewa (2012, background): “health interventions typically rely on reports of RCTs as their primary source of evidence [19].”
• Critical Appraisal of Mixed Methods Studies (2013, background): “After all, it is generally known that the inclusion of studies that are methodologically flawed could lead to a substantial bias in the end result of a systematic review (Cooper & Hedges, 1994; Higgins & Altman, 2008).”
• GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence--study limitations (risk of bias). (2011, background): “, the focus of risk of bias is not the individual study but rather the individual outcome, and quality can differ across outcomes in individual trials, or a series of trials [1,2]).”
• Acceptance- and mindfulness-based interventions for the treatment of chronic pain: a meta-analytic review (2016, methodology): “Methodological quality of included studies was independently assessed by two reviewers (MV and KS) using a 8-point scale, based on criteria by the Cochrane Collaboration (Higgins & Altman, 2008) and the validated Jadad scale (Jadad, 1996) tailored for the included studies (see Table 1).”
• The Triple P-Positive Parenting Program: a systematic review and meta-analysis of a multi-level system of parenting support. (2014, methodology): “The Cochrane risk of bias tool (Higgins & Altman, 2008) was used to evaluate the randomized trials (RCTs and cluster randomized trials)and theRiskof BiasAssessment Tool for Nonrandomized Studies(RoBANS; Kim et al., 2013) wasusedto evaluate the non-randomized trials.”
• Mindfulness and acceptance approaches to sporting performance enhancement: a systematic review (2017, methodology): “…reader a degree of parsimony, the weights placed on different domains are seldom justified, and many such measures confuse issues of validity with other methodological issues (e.g. whether authors report a power analysis, which relates more to precision than to validity; Higgins & Altman, 2008).”
• Influence of Reported Study Design Characteristics on Intervention Effect Estimates From Randomized, Controlled Trials (2012, methodology): “Tools for assessing risk of bias in randomized, controlled trials (24, 25) and guidelines for summarizing the quality of evidence from systematic reviews (such as those from the GRADE [Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation] working group) should account for the findings o”
• Consumption of sugar sweetened beverages, artificially sweetened beverages, and fruit juice and incidence of type 2 diabetes: systematic review, meta-analysis, and estimation of population attributable fraction (2015, methodology): “…then used the result of the meta-analysis for sugar sweetened beverages to estimate the population attributable fraction for the 10 year risk of developing type 2 diabetes due to consumption of sugar sweetened beverages in contemporary populations of the United States and United Kingdom, where…”
• Clinical practice guideline on diagnosis and treatment of hyponatraemia. (2014, neutral): “These scores were averaged and colour-coded between red [1] and green [5] to help visualise any problematic part.”