RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Judgments of other bias in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions are highly inconsistent and thus hindering use and comparability of evidence
JF bioRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
SP 366591
DO 10.1101/366591
A1 Andrija Babic
A1 Andela Pijuk
A1 Lucie Brázdilová
A1 Yuliyana Georgieva
A1 Marco António Raposo Pereira
A1 Tina Poklepovic
A1 Livia Puljak
YR 2018
UL http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/07/11/366591.abstract
AB 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.