Recommendations for assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews of health-care interventions

Meera Viswanathan, Carrie D. Patnode, Nancy D. Berkman, Eric B Bass, Stephanie Chang, Lisa Hartling, M. Hassan Murad, Jonathan R. Treadwell, Robert L. Kane

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objectives: Risk-of-bias assessment is a central component of systematic reviews, but little conclusive empirical evidence exists on the validity of such assessments. In the context of such uncertainty, we present pragmatic recommendations that promote transparency and reproducibility in processes, address methodological advances in the risk-of-bias assessment, and can be applied consistently across review topics. Study Design and Setting: Epidemiological study design principles; available empirical evidence, risk-of-bias tools, and guidance; and workgroup consensus. Results: We developed recommendations for assessing the risk of bias of studies of health-care interventions specific to framing the focus and scope of risk-of-bias assessment; selecting the risk-of-bias categories; choosing assessment instruments; and conducting, analyzing, and presenting results of risk-of-bias assessments. Key recommendations include transparency and reproducibility of judgments, separating risk of bias from other constructs such as applicability and precision, and evaluating the risk of bias per outcome. We recommend against certain past practices, such as focusing on reporting quality, relying solely on study design or numerical quality scores, and automatically downgrading for industry sponsorship. Conclusion: Risk-of-bias assessment remains a challenging but essential step in systematic reviews. We presented standards to promote transparency of judgments.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)26-34
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume97
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2018

Fingerprint

Delivery of Health Care
Uncertainty
Epidemiologic Studies
Consensus
Industry

Keywords

  • Critical appraisal
  • Evidence-based practice
  • Health-care interventions
  • Meta-analyses
  • Risk-of-bias guidance
  • Systematic reviews

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

Recommendations for assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews of health-care interventions. / Viswanathan, Meera; Patnode, Carrie D.; Berkman, Nancy D.; Bass, Eric B; Chang, Stephanie; Hartling, Lisa; Murad, M. Hassan; Treadwell, Jonathan R.; Kane, Robert L.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 97, 01.05.2018, p. 26-34.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Viswanathan, M, Patnode, CD, Berkman, ND, Bass, EB, Chang, S, Hartling, L, Murad, MH, Treadwell, JR & Kane, RL 2018, 'Recommendations for assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews of health-care interventions' Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 97, pp. 26-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.004
Viswanathan, Meera ; Patnode, Carrie D. ; Berkman, Nancy D. ; Bass, Eric B ; Chang, Stephanie ; Hartling, Lisa ; Murad, M. Hassan ; Treadwell, Jonathan R. ; Kane, Robert L. / Recommendations for assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews of health-care interventions. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2018 ; Vol. 97. pp. 26-34.
@article{7d87f179acb141e5834c6fc549c4b080,
title = "Recommendations for assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews of health-care interventions",
abstract = "Objectives: Risk-of-bias assessment is a central component of systematic reviews, but little conclusive empirical evidence exists on the validity of such assessments. In the context of such uncertainty, we present pragmatic recommendations that promote transparency and reproducibility in processes, address methodological advances in the risk-of-bias assessment, and can be applied consistently across review topics. Study Design and Setting: Epidemiological study design principles; available empirical evidence, risk-of-bias tools, and guidance; and workgroup consensus. Results: We developed recommendations for assessing the risk of bias of studies of health-care interventions specific to framing the focus and scope of risk-of-bias assessment; selecting the risk-of-bias categories; choosing assessment instruments; and conducting, analyzing, and presenting results of risk-of-bias assessments. Key recommendations include transparency and reproducibility of judgments, separating risk of bias from other constructs such as applicability and precision, and evaluating the risk of bias per outcome. We recommend against certain past practices, such as focusing on reporting quality, relying solely on study design or numerical quality scores, and automatically downgrading for industry sponsorship. Conclusion: Risk-of-bias assessment remains a challenging but essential step in systematic reviews. We presented standards to promote transparency of judgments.",
keywords = "Critical appraisal, Evidence-based practice, Health-care interventions, Meta-analyses, Risk-of-bias guidance, Systematic reviews",
author = "Meera Viswanathan and Patnode, {Carrie D.} and Berkman, {Nancy D.} and Bass, {Eric B} and Stephanie Chang and Lisa Hartling and Murad, {M. Hassan} and Treadwell, {Jonathan R.} and Kane, {Robert L.}",
year = "2018",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.004",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "97",
pages = "26--34",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Recommendations for assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews of health-care interventions

AU - Viswanathan, Meera

AU - Patnode, Carrie D.

AU - Berkman, Nancy D.

AU - Bass, Eric B

AU - Chang, Stephanie

AU - Hartling, Lisa

AU - Murad, M. Hassan

AU - Treadwell, Jonathan R.

AU - Kane, Robert L.

PY - 2018/5/1

Y1 - 2018/5/1

N2 - Objectives: Risk-of-bias assessment is a central component of systematic reviews, but little conclusive empirical evidence exists on the validity of such assessments. In the context of such uncertainty, we present pragmatic recommendations that promote transparency and reproducibility in processes, address methodological advances in the risk-of-bias assessment, and can be applied consistently across review topics. Study Design and Setting: Epidemiological study design principles; available empirical evidence, risk-of-bias tools, and guidance; and workgroup consensus. Results: We developed recommendations for assessing the risk of bias of studies of health-care interventions specific to framing the focus and scope of risk-of-bias assessment; selecting the risk-of-bias categories; choosing assessment instruments; and conducting, analyzing, and presenting results of risk-of-bias assessments. Key recommendations include transparency and reproducibility of judgments, separating risk of bias from other constructs such as applicability and precision, and evaluating the risk of bias per outcome. We recommend against certain past practices, such as focusing on reporting quality, relying solely on study design or numerical quality scores, and automatically downgrading for industry sponsorship. Conclusion: Risk-of-bias assessment remains a challenging but essential step in systematic reviews. We presented standards to promote transparency of judgments.

AB - Objectives: Risk-of-bias assessment is a central component of systematic reviews, but little conclusive empirical evidence exists on the validity of such assessments. In the context of such uncertainty, we present pragmatic recommendations that promote transparency and reproducibility in processes, address methodological advances in the risk-of-bias assessment, and can be applied consistently across review topics. Study Design and Setting: Epidemiological study design principles; available empirical evidence, risk-of-bias tools, and guidance; and workgroup consensus. Results: We developed recommendations for assessing the risk of bias of studies of health-care interventions specific to framing the focus and scope of risk-of-bias assessment; selecting the risk-of-bias categories; choosing assessment instruments; and conducting, analyzing, and presenting results of risk-of-bias assessments. Key recommendations include transparency and reproducibility of judgments, separating risk of bias from other constructs such as applicability and precision, and evaluating the risk of bias per outcome. We recommend against certain past practices, such as focusing on reporting quality, relying solely on study design or numerical quality scores, and automatically downgrading for industry sponsorship. Conclusion: Risk-of-bias assessment remains a challenging but essential step in systematic reviews. We presented standards to promote transparency of judgments.

KW - Critical appraisal

KW - Evidence-based practice

KW - Health-care interventions

KW - Meta-analyses

KW - Risk-of-bias guidance

KW - Systematic reviews

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85042288596&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85042288596&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.004

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.004

M3 - Article

VL - 97

SP - 26

EP - 34

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

ER -