Ding Hong, Hu Guang Li, Zheng Xue Yan, Chen Qing, Threapleton Diane Erin, Zhou Zeng Huan
Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Southern Medical University, Guangdong, China.
Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Primary Care, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
PLoS One. 2015 Apr 13;10(4):e0120519. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120519. eCollection 2015.
It is possible that cross-over studies included in current systematic reviews are being inadequately assessed, because the current risk of bias tools do not consider possible biases specific to cross-over design. We performed this study to evaluate whether this was being done in cross-over studies included in Cochrane Systematic Reviews (CSRs).
We searched the Cochrane Library (up to 2013 issue 5) for CSRs that included at least one cross-over trial. Two authors independently undertook the study selection and data extraction. A random sample of the CSRs was selected and we evaluated whether the cross-over trials in these CSRs were assessed according to criteria suggested by the Cochrane handbook. In addition we reassessed the risk of bias of these cross-over trials by a checklist developed form the Cochrane handbook.
We identified 688 CSRs that included one or more cross-over studies. We chose a random sample of 60 CSRs and these included 139 cross-over studies. None of these CSRs undertook a risk of bias assessment specific for cross-over studies. In fact items specific for cross-over studies were seldom considered anywhere in quality assessment of these CSRs. When we reassessed the risk of bias, including the 3 items specific to cross-over trials, of these 139 studies, a low risk of bias was judged for appropriate cross-over design in 110(79%), carry-over effects in 48(34%) and for reporting data in all stages of the trial in 114(82%).Assessment of biases in cross-over trials could affect the GRADE assessment of a review's findings.
The current Cochrane risk of bias tool is not adequate to assess cross-over studies. Items specific to cross-over trials leading to potential risk of bias are generally neglected in CSRs. A proposed check list for the evaluation of cross-over trials is provided.
纳入当前系统评价中的交叉研究可能未得到充分评估,因为当前的偏倚风险工具未考虑交叉设计特有的可能偏倚。我们开展本研究以评估Cochrane系统评价(CSR)中纳入的交叉研究是否存在这种情况。
我们检索Cochrane图书馆(截至2013年第5期),查找至少纳入一项交叉试验的CSR。两位作者独立进行研究选择和数据提取。选取CSR的随机样本,我们评估这些CSR中的交叉试验是否根据Cochrane手册建议的标准进行评估。此外,我们通过根据Cochrane手册制定的清单重新评估这些交叉试验的偏倚风险。
我们识别出688项纳入一项或多项交叉研究的CSR。我们随机选取60项CSR样本,其中包括139项交叉研究。这些CSR均未针对交叉研究进行偏倚风险评估。事实上,在这些CSR的质量评估中,很少在任何地方考虑交叉研究特有的项目。当我们重新评估这139项研究的偏倚风险,包括交叉试验特有的3个项目时,110项(79%)研究的交叉设计适当、48项(34%)研究的延滞效应以及114项(82%)研究的试验各阶段数据报告被判定为低偏倚风险。交叉试验中的偏倚评估可能会影响对综述结果的GRADE评估。
当前的Cochrane偏倚风险工具不足以评估交叉研究。CSR中通常忽略交叉试验特有的导致潜在偏倚风险的项目。本文提供了一份评估交叉试验的拟议清单。