Assessing the Take chances of Bias in Systematic Reviews of Health Intendance Interventions

Methods Guide – Chapter Dec thirteen, 2017

Introduction

Assessing the risk of bias of studies included in the trunk of evidence is a foundational part of all systematic reviews.1,2 Information technology is distinct from other important and related activities of assessing the degree of the congruence of the research question with the study design and the applicability of the evidence. The specific apply of adventure-of-bias assessments can vary. Assessment of take chances of bias (labeled as unclear, high, moderate, or low) are intended to help interpret findings and explain heterogeneity; in addition, EPC reviews utilize adventure-of-bias assessments of individual studies in grading the strength of the trunk of evidence. Some EPC reviews may exclude studies assessed as loftier run a risk of bias.

Despite the importance of risk-of-bias assessments in systematic reviews, show on the validity of such assessments is available only for a few risk-of-bias categories.three-5 Specifically, testify suggests that effect sizes may exist inaccurate when allocation is inappropriately curtained; random sequences are inadequately generated; and patients, clinicians, or outcome assessors (specially for subjective outcomes) are non blinded.4,six The influence on estimates of consequence tin be inconsistent and hard to predict for other bias categories such as misreckoning, allegiance to the protocol, and attrition bias, possibly considering meta-epidemiological studies are inadequately powered.five In addition to concerns regarding the validity of such assessments, methodological studies accept raised concerns about the limited reliability of risk-of-bias judgments.seven,eight

We do not attempt, in this document, to address the underlying and important sources of doubtfulness related to the validity or reliability of hazard-of-bias assessment. This certificate updates the existing Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Testify-based Do Middle (EPC) Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews on assessing the risk of bias of individual studies. This update adds areas of guidance (e.grand., evaluating subgroup analyses and including systematic reviews equally evidence), modifies guidance to reverberate new thinking (e.grand., risk-of-bias categories), and offers guidance to promote clarity and consistency. As with other AHRQ methodological guidance, our intent is to present standards that can exist applied consistently across EPCs and review topics, promote transparency and reproducibility in processes, and account for methodological changes in the systematic review procedure. These standards are based on epidemiological study blueprint principles, available empirical evidence, or workgroup consensus. As greater evidence accumulates in this methodological area, our standards will continue to evolve. When possible, our guidance offers flexibility to account for the wide range of AHRQ EPC review topics and included study designs, but besides offers parameters within which this flexibility tin can be applied.

In this guidance document, we define terms as appropriate for the EPC program, explore the potential overlap in different steps of the systematic review, and offer recommendations on the inclusion and exclusion of constructs that may utilise to multiple steps of the systematic review procedure. This guidance applies to systematic reviews exploring the link between an intervention or exposure and result. (Reviewers focusing on diagnostic tests,9 prognosis,10-12 prevalence, or qualitative13 assay should too consult guidance specific to these topics.) Later sections of this guidance certificate provide advice on minimum design-specific criteria to evaluate risk of bias and the stages involved in assessing risk of bias. We conclude with guidance on summarizing risk of bias.

Journal Publication

Viswanathan M, Patnode CD, Berkman ND, et al. Recommendations for Assessing the Gamble of Bias in Systematic Reviews of Wellness Care Interventions.  Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. ePub alee of print. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/ten.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.004.

Project Timeline

Assessing the Run a risk of Bias of Private Studies in Systematic Reviews of Wellness Care Interventions: An Update

Jan 6, 2017

Topic Initiated

Dec thirteen, 2017

Methods Guide – Chapter

Y'all Might As well Like

  • Research Protocol

    Jan 16, 2020

  • Presentation

    Dec thirty, 2019

  • Methods Guide – Affiliate

    February 23, 2018

  • Methods Guide – Affiliate

    Feb 02, 2018

  • Methods Guide – Chapter

    Dec 13, 2017

Page terminal reviewed August 2019

Folio originally created November 2017

Internet Citation: Methods Guide – Chapter: Assessing the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews of Health Care Interventions. Content last reviewed August 2019. Effective Health Care Programme, Agency for Healthcare Inquiry and Quality, Rockville, Doc.
https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/products/methods-bias-update/methods

Select to copy citation