• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

Cochrane 综述中的偏倚风险评估的重复评价一致性存在差异。

Inter-review agreement of risk-of-bias judgments varied in Cochrane reviews.

机构信息

Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109 Cologne, Germany.

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

出版信息

J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Apr;120:25-32. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.016. Epub 2019 Dec 19.

DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.016
PMID:31866473
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to measure the level of agreement between Cochrane reviews of overlapping randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding risk-of-bias (RoB) judgments.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

On November 5, 2017, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched for Cochrane reviews on tobacco. Reviews that included overlapping RCTs were included. RoB judgments were extracted from RoB tables using automated data scraping with manual verification and adjustments. Agreement between the reviews was calculated using Conger's generalized kappa coefficient (κ) and raw agreement (a).

RESULTS

We included 53 Cochrane reviews of 376 RCTs. For the RoB domain "random sequence generation," the level of agreement between the reviews was substantial with κ = 0.63 (95% confidence interval: 0.56 to 0.71; a = 0.80). There was slight-to-moderate agreement between the reviews regarding the domains "allocation concealment": κ = 0.51 (0.41 to 0.61), a = 0.75; "blinding": κ = 0.19 (0.02 to 0.37), a = 0.52; "blinding of outcome assessment": κ = 0.43 (0.14 to 0.72) a = 0.67; and "incomplete outcome data": κ = 0.15 (-0.03 to 0.32), a = 0.64. For "blinding of participants and personnel" and "selective reporting", κ could not be calculated. The raw agreement was 0.40 and 0.42, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The level of agreement between Cochrane reviews regarding RoB judgments ranged from slight to substantial depending on the RoB domain. Further investigations regarding reasons for variation and interventions to improve agreement are needed.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在衡量重叠随机对照试验(RCT)的 Cochrane 评价在偏倚风险(RoB)判断方面的一致性程度。

研究设计和设置

2017 年 11 月 5 日,对 Cochrane 系统评价数据库中的烟草主题文献进行检索,纳入包含重叠 RCT 的 Cochrane 评价。采用自动化数据抓取并辅以人工验证和调整,从 RoB 表中提取 RoB 判断结果。使用 Conger 广义kappa 系数(κ)和原始一致性(a)计算评价间的一致性。

结果

共纳入 53 项 Cochrane 评价,包含 376 项 RCT。在“随机序列生成”RoB 领域,评价间的一致性为高度一致,κ=0.63(95%置信区间:0.56 至 0.71;a=0.80)。在“分配隐藏”RoB 领域,评价间存在轻度至中度一致,κ=0.51(0.41 至 0.61),a=0.75;“盲法”κ=0.19(0.02 至 0.37),a=0.52;“结局评估盲法”κ=0.43(0.14 至 0.72),a=0.67;“结局数据不全”κ=0.15(-0.03 至 0.32),a=0.64。“参与者和实施者设盲”和“选择性报告”领域的 κ 无法计算,原始一致性分别为 0.40 和 0.42。

结论

在 RoB 领域,Cochrane 评价间的一致性程度从轻度至高度不等。需要进一步研究变异的原因和改善一致性的干预措施。

相似文献

1
Inter-review agreement of risk-of-bias judgments varied in Cochrane reviews.Cochrane 综述中的偏倚风险评估的重复评价一致性存在差异。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Apr;120:25-32. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.016. Epub 2019 Dec 19.
2
Risk of bias judgments for random sequence generation in Cochrane systematic reviews were frequently not in line with Cochrane Handbook.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。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Aug 5;19(1):170. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0804-y.
3
Disagreements in risk of bias assessment for randomized controlled trials in hypertension-related Cochrane reviews.高血压相关 Cochrane 综述中随机对照试验偏倚风险评估的分歧。
Trials. 2024 Jun 21;25(1):405. doi: 10.1186/s13063-024-08145-2.
4
Adequacy of risk of bias assessment in surgical vs non-surgical trials in Cochrane reviews: a methodological study.Cochrane 综述中手术与非手术试验的偏倚风险评估充分性:一项方法学研究。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 Sep 29;20(1):240. doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-01123-7.
5
Risk of bias assessments for blinding of participants and personnel in Cochrane reviews were frequently inadequate.Cochrane 综述中对参与者和人员进行盲法评估的风险常常不够充分。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Sep;113:104-113. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.05.012. Epub 2019 May 24.
6
Agreement of Risk-of -Bias varied in systematic reviews on acupuncture and was associated with methodological quality.针刺系统评价中风险偏倚评估的一致性存在差异,并与方法学质量相关。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Jan;129:12-20. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.08.017. Epub 2020 Sep 25.
7
There were large discrepancies in risk of bias tool judgments when a randomized controlled trial appeared in more than one systematic review.当一项随机对照试验出现在不止一篇系统评价中时,偏倚风险工具的判断存在很大差异。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Jan;81:72-76. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.08.012. Epub 2016 Sep 10.
8
Agreement in Risk of Bias Assessment Between RobotReviewer and Human Reviewers: An Evaluation Study on Randomised Controlled Trials in Nursing-Related Cochrane Reviews.机器人评估者与人工评估者在偏倚风险评估中的一致性:一项针对 Cochrane 护理相关综述中随机对照试验的评估研究。
J Nurs Scholarsh. 2021 Mar;53(2):246-254. doi: 10.1111/jnu.12628. Epub 2021 Feb 8.
9
Poor reliability between Cochrane reviewers and blinded external reviewers when applying the Cochrane risk of bias tool in physical therapy trials.在物理治疗试验中应用Cochrane偏倚风险工具时,Cochrane综述作者与盲法外部评审者之间的可靠性较差。
PLoS One. 2014 May 13;9(5):e96920. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0096920. eCollection 2014.
10
Assessing the risk of performance and detection bias in Cochrane reviews as a joint domain is less accurate compared to two separate domains.评估 Cochrane 综述中性能和检测偏倚的风险作为一个联合领域不如两个单独领域准确。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021 Jul 18;21(1):149. doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01339-1.

引用本文的文献

1
Human Versus Artificial Intelligence: Comparing Cochrane Authors' and ChatGPT's Risk of Bias Assessments.人类与人工智能:比较Cochrane作者和ChatGPT的偏倚风险评估
Cochrane Evid Synth Methods. 2025 Aug 31;3(5):e70044. doi: 10.1002/cesm.70044. eCollection 2025 Sep.
2
Using a large language model (ChatGPT) to assess risk of bias in randomized controlled trials of medical interventions: protocol for a pilot study of interrater agreement with human reviewers.使用大语言模型(ChatGPT)评估医学干预随机对照试验中的偏倚风险:与人类评审员进行评分者间一致性的初步研究方案
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2025 Jul 31;25(1):182. doi: 10.1186/s12874-025-02631-0.
3
Future of Evidence Synthesis: Automated, Living, and Interactive Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses.
证据综合的未来:自动化、动态及交互式系统评价与Meta分析
Mayo Clin Proc Digit Health. 2024 Jun 8;2(3):361-365. doi: 10.1016/j.mcpdig.2024.05.023. eCollection 2024 Sep.
4
ChatGPT-4o in Risk-of-Bias Assessments in Neonatology: A Validity Analysis.ChatGPT-4o在新生儿科偏倚风险评估中的应用:一项效度分析
Neonatology. 2025;122(3):360-365. doi: 10.1159/000544857. Epub 2025 Feb 25.
5
Artificial intelligence in food and nutrition evidence: The challenges and opportunities.食品与营养领域人工智能的证据:挑战与机遇
PNAS Nexus. 2024 Oct 15;3(12):pgae461. doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae461. eCollection 2024 Dec.
6
Disagreements in risk of bias assessment for randomized controlled trials in hypertension-related Cochrane reviews.高血压相关 Cochrane 综述中随机对照试验偏倚风险评估的分歧。
Trials. 2024 Jun 21;25(1):405. doi: 10.1186/s13063-024-08145-2.
7
Inter-Rater Agreement in Assessing Risk of Bias in Melanoma Prediction Studies Using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST): Results from a Controlled Experiment on the Effect of Specific Rater Training.使用预测模型偏倚风险评估工具(PROBAST)评估黑色素瘤预测研究中偏倚风险的评分者间一致性:关于特定评分者培训效果的对照实验结果
J Clin Med. 2023 Mar 2;12(5):1976. doi: 10.3390/jcm12051976.
8
A new method for testing reproducibility in systematic reviews was developed, but needs more testing.一种新的系统评价再现性测试方法已经开发出来,但需要进一步测试。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021 Jul 29;21(1):157. doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01342-6.
9
The methodological quality of 176,620 randomized controlled trials published between 1966 and 2018 reveals a positive trend but also an urgent need for improvement.1966 年至 2018 年间发表的 176620 项随机对照试验的方法学质量显示出一种积极的趋势,但也迫切需要改进。
PLoS Biol. 2021 Apr 19;19(4):e3001162. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001162. eCollection 2021 Apr.
10
Adequacy of risk of bias assessment in surgical vs non-surgical trials in Cochrane reviews: a methodological study.Cochrane 综述中手术与非手术试验的偏倚风险评估充分性:一项方法学研究。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 Sep 29;20(1):240. doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-01123-7.