Suppr超能文献

Cochrane 系统评价中随机序列生成的偏倚风险判断常常与 Cochrane 手册不一致。

Risk of bias judgments for random sequence generation in Cochrane systematic reviews were frequently not in line with Cochrane Handbook.

机构信息

Department of Surgery, University Hospital Split, Spinciceva 1, Split, Croatia.

Department for Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split, School of Medicine, Soltanska 2, Split, Croatia.

出版信息

BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Aug 5;19(1):170. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0804-y.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in included studies is one of the key methodological aspects of systematic reviews. Cochrane systematic reviews appraise RoB of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with the Cochrane RoB tool. Detailed instructions for using the Cochrane RoB tool are provided in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (The Cochrane Handbook). The purpose of this study was to analyse whether Cochrane authors use adequate judgments about the RoB for random sequence generation of RCTs included in Cochrane reviews.

METHODS

We extracted authors' judgments (high, low or unclear RoB) and supports for judgments (comments accompanying judgments which explain the rationale for a judgment) for random sequence generation of included RCTs from RoB tables of Cochrane reviews using automated data scraping. We categorised all supporting comments, analysed the number and type of various supporting comments and assessed adequacy of RoB judgment for randomisation in line with recommendations from the Cochrane Handbook.

RESULTS

We analysed 10,103 RCTs that were included in 704 Cochrane reviews. For 5,706 RCTs, randomisation was not described, but for the remaining RCTs, it was indicated that randomisation was performed using computer/software/internet (N = 2,850), random number table (N = 883), mechanical method (N = 359) or it was incomplete/inappropriate (N = 305). Overall, 1,220/10,103 trials (12%) did not have a RoB judgment in line with Cochrane Handbook guidance about randomisation. The highest proportion of misjudgements was found for trials with high RoB (28%), followed by those with low (20%) or unclear (3%). Therefore, one in eight judgments for the analysed domain in Cochrane reviews was not in line with Cochrane Handbook, and one in four if the judgment was "high risk".

CONCLUSION

Authors of Cochrane reviews often make judgments about the RoB related to random sequence generation that are not in line with instructions given in the Cochrane Handbook, which compromises the reliability of the systematic reviews. Our results can help authors of both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews which use Cochrane RoB tool to avoid making common mistakes when assessing RoB in included trials.

摘要

背景

评估纳入研究的偏倚风险(RoB)是系统评价的关键方法学方面之一。Cochrane 系统评价使用 Cochrane RoB 工具评估随机对照试验(RCT)的 RoB。Cochrane 干预系统评价手册(The Cochrane Handbook)提供了使用 Cochrane RoB 工具的详细说明。本研究旨在分析 Cochrane 作者在 Cochrane 评价中对 RCT 随机序列生成的 RoB 进行判断是否充分。

方法

我们使用自动数据抓取从 Cochrane 评价的 RoB 表中提取纳入 RCT 随机序列生成的作者判断(高、低或不清楚 RoB)和判断依据(伴随判断的评论,解释判断的依据)。我们对所有支持性评论进行分类,分析各种支持性评论的数量和类型,并根据 Cochrane 手册的建议评估随机化的 RoB 判断的充分性。

结果

我们分析了纳入 704 项 Cochrane 评价的 10,103 项 RCT。对于 5,706 项 RCT,未描述随机化,但对于其余 RCT,表明使用计算机/软件/互联网(N=2,850)、随机数字表(N=883)、机械方法(N=359)或不完整/不适当(N=305)进行了随机化。总体而言,10,103 项试验中有 1,220 项(12%)不符合 Cochrane 手册关于随机化的指导意见,没有 RoB 判断。判断错误比例最高的是 RoB 较高的试验(28%),其次是 RoB 较低的试验(20%)和不清楚的试验(3%)。因此,Cochrane 评价分析领域中每八个判断就有一个不符合 Cochrane 手册,而如果判断为“高风险”,则每四个判断就有一个不符合。

结论

Cochrane 评价的作者经常对与随机序列生成相关的 RoB 做出不符合 Cochrane 手册说明的判断,这会影响系统评价的可靠性。我们的结果可以帮助使用 Cochrane RoB 工具的 Cochrane 和非 Cochrane 评价的作者在评估纳入试验的 RoB 时避免常见错误。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/597b/6683577/7d56961e6eca/12874_2019_804_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验