Incorporation of assessments of risk of bias of primary studies in systematic reviews of randomised trials: a cross-sectional study

Incorporation of assessments of risk of bias of primary studies in systematic reviews of randomised trials: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE: We examined how assessments of risk of bias of primary studies are carried out and incorporated into the statistical analysis and overall findings of a systematic review. DESIGN: A cross-sectional review. SAMPLE: We assessed 200 systematic reviews of randomised trials published between J...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors:	Hopewell, S, Boutron, I, Altman, D, Ravaud, P
Format:	Journal article
Language:	English
Published:	BMJ Publishing Group 2013

Similar Items

Preventing bias in cluster randomised trials.
by: Bruno Giraudeau, et al.
Published: (2009-05-01)

Deficiencies in the publication and reporting of the results of systematic reviews presented at scientific medical conferences
by: Hopewell, S, et al.
Published: (2015)

Impact of adding a limitations section to abstracts of systematic reviews on readers’ interpretation: a randomized controlled trial
by: Yavchitz, A, et al.
Published: (2014)

A protocol of a cross-sectional study evaluating an online tool for early career peer reviewers assessing reports of randomized controlled trials
by: Chauvin, A, et al.
Published: (2017)

ASSESSING RISK OF BIAS IN RANDOMISED CLINICAL TRIALS INCLUDED IN COCHRANE REVIEWS: THE WHY IS EASY, THE HOW IS A CHALLENGE
by: Hrobjartsson, A, et al.
Published: (2013)

Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes.
by: Boutron, I, et al.
Published: (2010)

Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials.
by: Mathieu, S, et al.
Published: (2009)

Impact of a short version of the CONSORT checklist for peer reviewers to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials published in biomedical journals: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
by: Speich, B, et al.
Published: (2020)

Impact of Spin in the Abstracts of Articles Reporting Results of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Field of Cancer: The SPIIN Randomized Controlled Trial.
by: Boutron, I, et al.
Published: (2014)

Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Nonsignificant Results Reply
by: Boutron, I, et al.
Published: (2010)

Peer reviewers identified spin in manuscripts of nonrandomized studies assessing therapeutic interventions, but their impact on spin in abstract conclusions was limited
by: Lazarus, C, et al.
Published: (2016)

The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.
by: Higgins, J, et al.
Published: (2011)

The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
by: Higgins, J, et al.
Published: (2011)

Reporting characteristics of non-primary publications of results of randomized trials: a cross-sectional review.
by: Hopewell, S, et al.
Published: (2013)

Impact of a web-based tool (WebCONSORT) to improve the reporting of randomised trials: results of a randomised controlled trial
by: Hopewell, S, et al.
Published: (2016)

The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews.
by: Kirkham, J, et al.
Published: (2010)

Influence of peer review on the reporting of primary outcome(s) and statistical analyses of randomised trials
by: Hopewell, S, et al.
Published: (2018)

Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals : retrospective before and after study
by: Hopewell, S, et al.
Published: (2014)

RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
by: Sterne, JAC, et al.
Published: (2019)

Risk of bias in published randomised controlled trials
by: Indubala Maurya, et al.
Published: (2023-01-01)

Evolution of poor reporting and inadequate methods over time in 20 920 randomised controlled trials included in Cochrane reviews: research on research study
by: Dechartres, A, et al.
Published: (2017)

Risk of bias in observational studies using routinely collected data of comparative effectiveness research: a meta-research study
by: Van Thu Nguyen, et al.
Published: (2021-11-01)

The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed
by: Hopewell, S, et al.
Published: (2010)

Interpretation of Results of Studies Evaluating an Intervention Highlighted in Google Health News: A Cross-Sectional Study of News.
by: Romana Haneef, et al.
Published: (2015-01-01)

Assessing risk of bias in studies that evaluate health care interventions: recommendations in the misinformation age
by: Page, M, et al.
Published: (2018)

Influence of peer review on the reporting of primary outcome(s) and statistical analyses of randomised trials
by: Sally Hopewell, et al.
Published: (2018-01-01)

Underrepresentation of elderly people in randomised controlled trials. The example of trials of 4 widely prescribed drugs.
by: Cécile Konrat, et al.
Published: (2012-01-01)

The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed
by: Hopewell, S, et al.
Published: (2010)

Poor adherence of randomised trials in surgery to CONSORT guidelines for non-pharmacological treatments (NPT): a cross-sectional study
by: Nagendran, M, et al.
Published: (2013)

Assessment of transparency and selective reporting of interventional trials studying colorectal cancer
by: Anna Pellat, et al.
Published: (2022-03-01)

Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors.
by: Chan, A, et al.
Published: (2005)

Association between trial registration and positive study findings: cross sectional study (Epidemiological Study of Randomized Trials-ESORT).
by: Odutayo, A, et al.
Published: (2017)

A systematic review of the use of an expertise-based randomised controlled trial design.
by: Cook, J, et al.
Published: (2015)

Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: Explanation and elaboration
by: Boutron, I, et al.
Published: (2009)

Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment; explanation and elaboration
by: Boutron, I, et al.
Published: (2009)

Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration.
by: Boutron, I, et al.
Published: (2008)

Methods and processes of the CONSORT Group: example of an extension for trials assessing nonpharmacologic treatments.
by: Boutron, I, et al.
Published: (2008)

Effect of editors' implementation of CONSORT guidelines on the reporting of abstracts in high impact medical journals: interrupted time series analysis.
by: Hopewell, S, et al.
Published: (2012)

Effect of editors’ implementation of CONSORT guidelines on the reporting of abstracts in high impact medical journals: interrupted time series analysis
by: Hopewell, S, et al.
Published: (2012)

Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies
by: Higgins, J, et al.
Published: (2008)