• 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

相似文献

1
RoBANS 2: A Revised Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions.RoBANS 2:一种用于干预性非随机研究的修订版偏倚风险评估工具。
Korean J Fam Med. 2023 Sep;44(5):249-260. doi: 10.4082/kjfm.23.0034. Epub 2023 Jul 7.
2
Testing a tool for assessing the risk of bias for nonrandomized studies showed moderate reliability and promising validity.测试一种用于评估非随机研究偏倚风险的工具显示出了中等的可靠性和有前途的有效性。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Apr;66(4):408-14. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.09.016. Epub 2013 Jan 18.
3
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
4
5
Risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions showed low inter-rater reliability and challenges in its application.干预措施的非随机研究中的偏倚风险显示出低的评价者间可靠性和应用中的挑战。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Aug;112:28-35. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.001. Epub 2019 Apr 11.
6
Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool: methodological research.系统评价研究质量评估:Cochrane 协作风险偏倚工具与有效公共卫生实践项目质量评估工具的比较:方法学研究。
J Eval Clin Pract. 2012 Feb;18(1):12-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01516.x. Epub 2010 Aug 4.
7
Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews of Non-Randomized Studies of Adverse Cardiovascular Effects of Thiazolidinediones and Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitors: Application of a New Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.噻唑烷二酮类药物和环氧化酶-2抑制剂心血管不良事件非随机研究系统评价中的偏倚风险:一种新的Cochrane偏倚风险工具的应用
PLoS Med. 2016 Apr 5;13(4):e1001987. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001987. eCollection 2016 Apr.
8
Development of an interventional pain management specific instrument for methodologic quality assessment of nonrandomized studies of interventional techniques.开发一种用于介入技术非随机研究方法学质量评估的介入性疼痛管理专用工具。
Pain Physician. 2014 May-Jun;17(3):E291-317.
9
Quasi-experimental study designs series-paper 6: risk of bias assessment.准实验研究设计系列论文6:偏倚风险评估
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Sep;89:43-52. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.02.015. Epub 2017 Mar 27.
10
Multi-gene Pharmacogenomic Testing That Includes Decision-Support Tools to Guide Medication Selection for Major Depression: A Health Technology Assessment.多基因药物基因组学检测,包括用于指导抗抑郁药物选择的决策支持工具:一项卫生技术评估。
Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2021 Aug 12;21(13):1-214. eCollection 2021.

引用本文的文献

1
Sex differences in association football: a scoping review.足球运动中的性别差异:一项范围综述
PeerJ. 2025 Aug 27;13:e19976. doi: 10.7717/peerj.19976. eCollection 2025.
2
Appropriate timing of antibiotic initiation in patients with sepsis or septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.脓毒症或脓毒性休克患者抗生素起始使用的适宜时机:一项系统评价与荟萃分析
Korean J Intern Med. 2025 Sep;40(5):725-733. doi: 10.3904/kjim.2025.037. Epub 2025 Aug 26.
3
Effects of Exercise Snacks on Cardiometabolic Health and Body Composition in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.运动零食对成年人心脏代谢健康和身体成分的影响:一项系统评价与荟萃分析
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2025 Aug;35(8):e70114. doi: 10.1111/sms.70114.
4
Relationship between Inflammatory Cytokine and Depressive Symptoms in Postpartum Women: A Systematic Review.产后女性炎症细胞因子与抑郁症状的关系:一项系统综述
J Mother Child. 2025 Jul 19;29(1):63-70. doi: 10.34763/jmotherandchild.20252901.d-25-00006. eCollection 2025 Feb 1.
5
Association between digital technology use and social capital among older adults: A systematic review.老年人数字技术使用与社会资本之间的关联:一项系统综述。
Digit Health. 2025 Jul 10;11:20552076251336973. doi: 10.1177/20552076251336973. eCollection 2025 Jan-Dec.
6
Effect of bariatric surgery on glycemic and metabolic outcomes in people with obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-evidence of 39 studies.减肥手术对肥胖合并2型糖尿病患者血糖和代谢指标的影响:39项研究的系统评价、荟萃分析及综合证据
Front Nutr. 2025 Jun 23;12:1603670. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2025.1603670. eCollection 2025.
7
Government policy interventions to reduce veterinary antimicrobial consumption in production animals: a protocol for a systematic review and evidence map.政府为减少生产用动物抗菌药物使用量而采取的政策干预措施:一项系统评价和证据图谱方案
Syst Rev. 2025 Jun 3;14(1):122. doi: 10.1186/s13643-025-02829-9.
8
Effectiveness of radioiodine therapy on preventing recurrence in differentiated thyroid carcinoma: a systematic review.放射性碘治疗对分化型甲状腺癌预防复发的有效性:一项系统评价。
J Egypt Natl Canc Inst. 2025 May 21;37(1):39. doi: 10.1186/s43046-025-00293-z.
9
Gut microbiota of patients with post-stroke depression in Chinese population: a systematic review and meta-analysis.中国人群中中风后抑郁症患者的肠道微生物群:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2025 May 1;15:1444793. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2025.1444793. eCollection 2025.
10
Exploring the Pharmacokinetics of Drugs in Disabled Saudi Patients: A Systematic Review.探索沙特残疾患者药物的药代动力学:一项系统评价。
Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2025 Apr 16;18(4):582. doi: 10.3390/ph18040582.

本文引用的文献

1
Harnessing Real-World Evidence to Advance Cancer Research.利用真实世界证据推进癌症研究。
Curr Oncol. 2023 Feb 2;30(2):1844-1859. doi: 10.3390/curroncol30020143.
2
Recent Advance in Clinical Practice Guideline Development Methodology.临床实践指南制定方法的最新进展
Korean J Fam Med. 2022 Nov;43(6):347-352. doi: 10.4082/kjfm.22.0178. Epub 2022 Nov 20.
3
Introduction to real-world evidence studies.真实世界证据研究导论。
Perspect Clin Res. 2021 Jul-Sep;12(3):171-174. doi: 10.4103/picr.picr_62_21. Epub 2021 Jul 7.
4
Bias Implications of Outcome Misclassification in Observational Studies Evaluating Association Between Treatments and All-Cause or Cardiovascular Mortality Using Administrative Claims.利用行政索赔评估治疗与全因或心血管死亡率之间关联的观察性研究中结局错分的偏倚影响。
J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 Sep;9(17):e016906. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.120.016906. Epub 2020 Aug 26.
5
Measurement error in clinical research, yes it matters.临床研究中的测量误差,是的,这很重要。
Eur J Endocrinol. 2020 Sep;183(3):E3-E5. doi: 10.1530/EJE-20-0550.
6
RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.《随机对照试验偏倚风险评估工具2:修订版》
BMJ. 2019 Aug 28;366:l4898. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4898.
7
Randomized controlled trials and real-world data: differences and similarities to untangle literature data.随机对照试验和真实世界数据:理清文献数据的差异和相似之处。
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2018 Oct 1;57(57 Suppl 7):vii54-vii58. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/key109.
8
Real-world Evidence versus Randomized Controlled Trial: Clinical Research Based on Electronic Medical Records.真实世界证据与随机对照试验:基于电子病历的临床研究。
J Korean Med Sci. 2018 Jun 26;33(34):e213. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2018.33.e213. eCollection 2018 Aug 20.
9
AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both.AMSTAR 2:一种用于系统评价的关键评估工具,该系统评价包括医疗保健干预措施的随机或非随机研究,或两者皆有。
BMJ. 2017 Sep 21;358:j4008. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j4008.
10
Evidence for Detection Bias by Medication Use in a Cohort Study of Breast Cancer Survivors.在一项乳腺癌幸存者队列研究中,用药导致检测偏倚的证据。
Am J Epidemiol. 2017 Apr 15;185(8):661-672. doi: 10.1093/aje/kww242.

RoBANS 2:一种用于干预性非随机研究的修订版偏倚风险评估工具。

RoBANS 2: A Revised Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions.

作者信息

Seo Hyun-Ju, Kim Soo Young, Lee Yoon Jae, Park Ji-Eun

机构信息

College of Nursing, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, Korea.

Department of Family Medicine, College of Medicine, Hallym University, Seoul, Korea.

出版信息

Korean J Fam Med. 2023 Sep;44(5):249-260. doi: 10.4082/kjfm.23.0034. Epub 2023 Jul 7.

DOI:10.4082/kjfm.23.0034
PMID:37423253
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10522469/
Abstract

Assessment of the risk of bias is an essential component of any systematic review. This is true for both nonrandomized studies and randomized trials, which are the main study designs of systematic reviews. The Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomized Studies (RoBANS) was developed in 2013 and has gained wide usage as a risk-of-bias assessment tool for nonrandomized studies. Four risk-of-bias assessment experts revised it by reviewing existing assessment tools and user surveys. The main modifications included additional domains of selection and detection bias susceptible to nonrandomized studies of interventions, a more detailed consideration of the comparability of participants, and more reliable and valid outcome measurements. A psychometric assessment of the revised RoBANS (RoBANS 2) revealed acceptable inter-rater reliability (weighted kappa, 0.25 to 0.49) and construct validity in which intervention effects of studies with an unclear or high risk of bias were overestimated. The RoBANS 2 has acceptable feasibility, fair-to-moderate reliability, and construct validity. It provides a comprehensive framework for allowing authors to assess and understand the plausible risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions.

摘要

偏倚风险评估是任何系统评价的重要组成部分。对于非随机研究和随机试验来说都是如此,这两种研究是系统评价的主要研究设计类型。非随机研究偏倚风险评估工具(RoBANS)于2013年开发,并作为非随机研究的偏倚风险评估工具得到了广泛应用。四位偏倚风险评估专家通过回顾现有的评估工具和用户调查对其进行了修订。主要修改内容包括针对干预措施的非随机研究易出现的选择偏倚和检测偏倚增加了额外的领域,对参与者的可比性进行了更详细的考量,以及采用了更可靠、有效的结局测量方法。对修订后的RoBANS(RoBANS 2)进行的心理测量评估显示,其具有可接受的评分者间信度(加权kappa系数为0.25至0.49)以及结构效度,其中偏倚风险不明确或高风险研究的干预效应被高估。RoBANS 2具有可接受的可行性、中等偏下的信度和结构效度。它为作者评估和理解干预措施非随机研究中可能存在的偏倚风险提供了一个全面的框架。