Barcot Ognjen, Dosenovic Svjetlana, Boric Matija, Pericic Tina Poklepovic, Cavar Marija, Jelicic Kadic Antonia, Puljak Livia
Department of Abdominal Surgery, University Hospital Split, Split, Croatia.
Department of Anesthesiology & Intensive Care, University Hospital Split, Croatia.
J Comp Eff Res. 2020 Jun;9(8):585-593. doi: 10.2217/cer-2019-0181. Epub 2020 May 27.
Adequate judging of risk of bias (RoB) for blinding of outcome assessors (detection bias) is important for supporting highest level of evidence. Judgments and supporting comments for detection bias were retrieved from RoB tables reported in Cochrane reviews. We categorized comments, and then compared judgment and supporting comment with instructions from the Cochrane Handbook. We analyzed 8656 judgments for detection bias from 7626 trials included in 575 reviews. Overall, 1909 judgments (22%) were not in line with the Cochrane Handbook. In 9% of trials, the authors split the detection bias domain according to outcomes. Here, prevalence of inadequate judgments was 19%. Interventions to improve RoB assessments in systematic reviews should be explored.
对结果评估者实施盲法(检测偏倚)的偏倚风险(RoB)进行充分判断,对于支持最高级别的证据很重要。从Cochrane系统评价报告的RoB表格中检索关于检测偏倚的判断和支持性评论。我们对评论进行分类,然后将判断和支持性评论与《Cochrane手册》中的说明进行比较。我们分析了575篇系统评价中纳入的7626项试验的8656项检测偏倚判断。总体而言,1909项判断(22%)不符合《Cochrane手册》。在9%的试验中,作者根据结果对检测偏倚领域进行了划分。在此情况下,判断不充分的发生率为19%。应探索在系统评价中改善RoB评估的干预措施。