Stone Jennifer C, Leonardi-Bee Jo, Barker Timothy H, Sears Kim, Klugar Miloslav, Munn Zachary, Aromataris Edoardo
JBI, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Centre for Evidence Based Healthcare, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
JBI Evid Synth. 2024 Mar 1;22(3):389-393. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-23-00463.
There are numerous tools available to assess the risk of bias in individual studies in a systematic review. These tools have different structures, including scales and checklists, which may or may not separate their items by domains. There are also various approaches and guides for the process, scoring, and interpretation of risk of bias assessments, such as value judgments, quality scores, and relative ranks. The objective of this commentary, which is part of the JBI Series on Risk of Bias, is to discuss some of the distinctions among different tool structures and approaches to risk of bias assessment and the implications of these approaches for systematic reviewers.
在系统评价中，有许多工具可用于评估单个研究的偏倚风险。这些工具具有不同的结构，包括量表和清单，它们可能会也可能不会按领域对其项目进行区分。对于偏倚风险评估的过程、评分和解释，也有各种方法和指南，如价值判断、质量评分和相对排名。本评论是JBI偏倚风险系列的一部分，其目的是讨论不同工具结构和偏倚风险评估方法之间的一些区别以及这些方法对系统评价者的影响。
