Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies

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

4,837 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b95a10c2635dc5a5521f17f471a860abb0c8de9a

How researchers see this paper

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

1. Mieke Heyvaert
2. J. Kirby
3. J. Dawson
4. Cassandra L. Tellegen
5. J. Day
6. K. Hannes
7. M. Sanders
8. B. Maes

Citations in the corpus

• The impact of guidance on Internet-based mental health interventions — A systematic review (2014, methodology): “The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (Higgins and Altman, 2008).”
• Effectiveness of Web-based Psychological Interventions for Depression: A Meta-analysis (2013, methodology): “A quality scale was not used because psychometric properties of quality scales are not well established (Higgins and Altman 2008, para.”
• 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.”