Department of Radiology, University Hospital Split, Split, Croatia.
Department of Surgery, University Hospital Split, Split, Croatia.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Aug;112:53-58. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.007. Epub 2019 Apr 19.
The aim of the study was to analyze adequacy of risk of bias (RoB) judgments for selective reporting in Cochrane systematic reviews.
We extracted RoB assessments, including judgment (low, high, or unclear risk) and supporting comment from Cochrane reviews of randomized controlled trials using computer parser. We analyzed sources of information mentioned in supporting comments. We compared judgments of Cochrane authors with guidance from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Cochrane Handbook) and categorized them into adequate or inadequate.
At least 60% of judgments for risk of selective reporting bias of trials in analyzed Cochrane reviews were not in line with the Cochrane Handbook. Few Cochrane authors mentioned the trial protocol as a source of data for assessing selective reporting. Most of the inadequate judgments were made among trials that were judged with low risk of selective reporting bias; more than 90%. In 9% of analyzed RoB tables, Cochrane authors did not use this RoB domain at all.
Cochrane authors frequently make RoB judgments about selective reporting that are not in line with Cochrane Handbook and not mentioning trial protocol. Interventions aimed at helping Cochrane authors to make adequate RoB assessments in Cochrane reviews would be beneficial.
本研究旨在分析 Cochrane 系统评价中选择性报告风险偏倚（RoB）判断的充分性。
我们使用计算机解析器从 Cochrane 随机对照试验的系统评价中提取 RoB 评估，包括判断（低、高或不明确风险）和支持性评论。我们分析了支持性评论中提到的信息来源。我们将 Cochrane 作者的判断与干预 Cochrane 系统评价手册（Cochrane Handbook）的指导进行比较，并将其归类为充分或不充分。
在分析的 Cochrane 综述中，至少有 60%的试验选择性报告偏倚风险的判断与 Cochrane 手册不一致。少数 Cochrane 作者提到试验方案是评估选择性报告的数据源。大多数不充分的判断是在被判断为选择性报告偏倚风险低的试验中做出的；超过 90%。在 9%的分析 RoB 表中，Cochrane 作者根本没有使用这个 RoB 领域。
Cochrane 作者经常对选择性报告做出与 Cochrane 手册不一致的 RoB 判断，并且不提及试验方案。旨在帮助 Cochrane 作者在 Cochrane 综述中进行充分 RoB 评估的干预措施将是有益的。
