TY - JOUR T1 - Judgments of other bias in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions are highly inconsistent and thus hindering use and comparability of evidence JF - bioRxiv DO - 10.1101/366591 SP - 366591 AU - Andrija Babic AU - Andela Pijuk AU - Lucie Brázdilová AU - Yuliyana Georgieva AU - Marco António Raposo Pereira AU - Tina Poklepovic AU - Livia Puljak Y1 - 2018/01/01 UR - http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/07/11/366591.abstract N2 - Background Clinical decisions are made based on Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs), but implementation of results of evidence syntheses such as CSRs is problematic if the evidence is not prepared consistently. All systematic reviews should assess risk of bias (RoB) in included studies, and in CSRs this is done by using Cochrane RoB tool. However, the tool is not necessarily applied according to the instructions. In this study we aimed to analyze types and judgments of ‘other bias’ in the RoB tool in CSRs of interventions.Methods We analyzed CSRs that included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and extracted data regarding ‘other bias’ from the RoB table and accompanying support for the judgment. We categorized different types of other bias.Results We analyzed 768 CSRs that included 11369 RCTs. There were 602 (78%) CSRs that had ‘other bias’ domain in the RoB tool, and they included a total of 7811 RCTs. In the RoB table of 337 CSRs for at least one of the included trials it was indicated that no other bias was found and supporting explanations were inconsistently judged as low, unclear or high RoB. In the 524 CSRs that described various sources of other bias there were 5762 individual types of explanations which we categorized into 31 groups. The judgments of the same supporting explanations were highly inconsistent. Furthermore, we found numerous other inconsistencies in reporting of sources of other bias in CSRs.Conclusion Cochrane authors mention a wide range of sources of other bias in the RoB tool and they inconsistently judge the same supporting explanations. Inconsistency in appraising risk of other bias hinders reliability and comparability of Cochrane systematic reviews. Furthermore, discrepant and erroneous judgments of bias in evidence synthesis will inevitably hinder implementation of evidence in routine clinical practice and reduce confidence of practitioners in otherwise trustworthy sources of information. ER -