文献检索文档翻译深度研究
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
邀请有礼套餐&价格历史记录

新学期,新优惠

限时优惠:9月1日-9月22日

30天高级会员仅需29元

1天体验卡首发特惠仅需5.99元

了解详情
不再提醒
插件&应用
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
高级版
套餐订阅购买积分包
AI 工具
文献检索文档翻译深度研究
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 @ 2025

使用偏倚风险评估工具 2 评估随机对照试验结果:来自 Cochrane 的指导。

Using Risk of Bias 2 to assess results from randomised controlled trials: guidance from Cochrane.

机构信息

Cochrane Evidence Production and Methods Directorate, Cochrane, London, UK.

Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK.

出版信息

BMJ Evid Based Med. 2023 Aug;28(4):260-266. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112102. Epub 2023 Jan 24.


DOI:10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112102
PMID:36693715
Abstract

A systematic review identifies, appraises and synthesises all the empirical evidence from studies that meet prespecified eligibility criteria to answer a specific research question. As part of the appraisal, researchers use explicit methods to assess risk of bias in the results' from included studies that contribute to the review's findings, to improve our confidence in the review's conclusions. Randomised controlled trials included in Cochrane Reviews have used a specific risk of bias tool to assess these included studies since 2008. In 2019, a new version of this tool, Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2), was launched to improve its usability and to reflect current understanding of how the causes of bias can influence study results. Cochrane implemented RoB 2 in a phased approach, with users of the tool informing guidance development. This paper highlights learning for all systematic reviewers (Cochrane and non-Cochrane) from the phased implementation, highlighting differences between the original version of the tool and RoB 2, consideration of reporting systematic review protocols or full review reports that have used RoB 2, and some tips shared by authors during the pilot phase of the implementation.

摘要

系统评价通过识别、评估和综合所有符合既定纳入标准的研究中的经验证据,来回答特定的研究问题。作为评估的一部分,研究人员使用明确的方法来评估纳入研究结果的偏倚风险,以提高我们对系统评价结论的信心。自 2008 年以来,Cochrane 评价中纳入的随机对照试验一直使用特定的偏倚风险工具来评估这些纳入的研究。2019 年,该工具的新版本(RoB 2)推出,以提高其可用性,并反映出目前对偏倚原因如何影响研究结果的理解。Cochrane 分阶段实施 RoB 2,工具使用者为指南制定提供信息。本文重点介绍了从分阶段实施中获得的所有系统评价者(Cochrane 和非 Cochrane)的学习经验,包括工具原始版本和 RoB 2 之间的差异、考虑使用 RoB 2 报告系统评价方案或完整的评价报告,以及作者在实施试点阶段分享的一些技巧。

相似文献

[1]
Using Risk of Bias 2 to assess results from randomised controlled trials: guidance from Cochrane.

BMJ Evid Based Med. 2023-8

[2]
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-2-1

[3]
Analysis of risk of bias assessments in a sample of intervention systematic reviews, Part II: focus on risk of bias tools reveals few meet current appraisal standards.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2024-10

[4]
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.

Early Hum Dev. 2020-11

[5]
Cochrane risk of bias tool was used inadequately in the majority of non-Cochrane systematic reviews.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2020-7

[6]
The judgement of biases included in the category "other bias" in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: a systematic survey.

BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019-4-11

[7]
Frequency of use and adequacy of Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 in non-Cochrane systematic reviews published in 2020: Meta-research study.

Res Synth Methods. 2024-5

[8]
Risk of bias judgments for random sequence generation in Cochrane systematic reviews were frequently not in line with Cochrane Handbook.

BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019-8-5

[9]
Risk of bias over time in updates of Cochrane oral health reviews.

J Dent. 2018-10-17

[10]
Poor reliability between Cochrane reviewers and blinded external reviewers when applying the Cochrane risk of bias tool in physical therapy trials.

PLoS One. 2014-5-13

引用本文的文献

[1]
Systematic review and meta-analysis of educational approaches to reduce cognitive biases among students.

Nat Hum Behav. 2025-8-26

[2]
Effectiveness and challenges of digital tools implementation for enhancing infectious disease surveillance data quality in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review protocol.

PLoS One. 2025-8-22

[3]
Healthcare effects and evidence robustness of reimbursable digital health applications in Germany: a systematic review.

NPJ Digit Med. 2025-8-1

[4]
Effects of probiotics and synbiotics oral supplementation on thyroid function in adults: a grade-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis.

Thyroid Res. 2025-8-1

[5]
Effect of resistance training on kinetic and kinematic indicators in jump athletes: a systematic review.

BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2025-7-23

[6]
NOACs for VTE prevention in patients with lower limb fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

J Orthop Surg Res. 2025-7-15

[7]
Effects of Curcuminoids Plus Piperine Co-Supplementation on Liver Enzymes and Inflammation in Adults: A GRADE-Assessed Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Food Sci Nutr. 2025-7-14

[8]
Improving Female Health at Various Life Stages: .

Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2025-5-2

[9]
Combined bailing capsule and conventional therapies in the treatment of chronic renal failure: a meta-analysis and economic evaluation.

Front Med (Lausanne). 2025-6-25

[10]
Dietary interventions and glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

J Public Health Afr. 2025-6-26

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

推荐工具

医学文档翻译智能文献检索