Cargando…

The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Higgins, Julian P T, Altman, Douglas G, Gøtzsche, Peter C, Jüni, Peter, Moher, David, Oxman, Andrew D, Savović, Jelena, Schulz, Kenneth F, Weeks, Laura, Sterne, Jonathan A C
Formato:	Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:	English
Publicado:	BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2011
Materias:	Research Methods & Reporting
Acceso en línea:	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3196245/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22008217 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928

Ejemplares similares

Evaluation of the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials: focus groups, online survey, proposed recommendations and their implementation
por: Savović, Jelena, et al.
Publicado: (2014)

Evaluation of the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized clinical trials: overview of published comments and analysis of user practice in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews
por: Jørgensen, Lars, et al.
Publicado: (2016)

A new large-scale meta-epidemiological study on bias in randomized trials using routinely collected risk-of-bias assessments by cochrane reviewers: results from the robes study
por: Savovic, Jelena, et al.
Publicado: (2015)

The evolution of assessing bias in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: celebrating methodological contributions of the Cochrane Collaboration
por: Turner, Lucy, et al.
Publicado: (2013)

The Cochrane Collaboration withdraws a review on methylphenidate for adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
por: Boesen, Kim, et al.
Publicado: (2017)

Association Between Risk-of-Bias Assessments and Results of Randomized Trials in Cochrane Reviews: The ROBES Meta-Epidemiologic Study
por: Savović, Jelena, et al.
Publicado: (2018)

CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
por: Moher, David, et al.
Publicado: (2010)

Recommendations by Cochrane Review Groups for assessment of the risk of bias in studies
por: Lundh, Andreas, et al.
Publicado: (2008)

ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions
por: Sterne, Jonathan AC, et al.
Publicado: (2016)

CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
por: Schulz, Kenneth F, et al.
Publicado: (2010)

Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane review(a)
por: Turner, Lucy, et al.
Publicado: (2012)

Development of a method for adjusting trial results for biases in meta-analysis
por: Turner, Rebecca, et al.
Publicado: (2013)

Meta-analysis and The Cochrane Collaboration: 20 years of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group
por: McKenzie, Joanne E, et al.
Publicado: (2013)

Empirical Evidence of Study Design Biases in Randomized Trials: Systematic Review of Meta-Epidemiological Studies
por: Page, Matthew J., et al.
Publicado: (2016)

Randomised Controlled Trials: The Cochrane Collaboration
por: Herxheimer, Andrew
Publicado: (1993)

Design characteristics, risk of bias, and reporting of randomised controlled trials supporting approvals of cancer drugs by European Medicines Agency, 2014-16: cross sectional analysis
por: Naci, Huseyin, et al.
Publicado: (2019)

SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials
por: Chan, An-Wen, et al.
Publicado: (2013)

Dealing with substantial heterogeneity in Cochrane reviews. Cross-sectional study
por: Schroll, Jeppe B, et al.
Publicado: (2011)

Searching for unpublished data for Cochrane reviews: cross sectional study
por: Schroll, Jeppe Bennekou, et al.
Publicado: (2013)

Methods to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis
por: Treweek, Shaun, et al.
Publicado: (2013)

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration
por: Liberati, Alessandro, et al.
Publicado: (2009)

Effect of standardized training on the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool: a prospective study
por: da Costa, Bruno R., et al.
Publicado: (2017)

CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
por: Schulz, Kenneth F, et al.
Publicado: (2010)

CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
por: Schulz, Kenneth F, et al.
Publicado: (2010)

CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomised Trials
por: Schulz, Kenneth F., et al.
Publicado: (2010)

CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
por: Schulz, Kenneth F., et al.
Publicado: (2010)

The influence of CONSORT on the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials: an updated review
por: Turner, Lucy, et al.
Publicado: (2011)

Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement
por: Zwarenstein, Merrick, et al.
Publicado: (2008)

Multiplicity of data in trial reports and the reliability of meta-analyses: empirical study
por: Tendal, Britta, et al.
Publicado: (2011)

Effect of standardized training on the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool: a study protocol
por: da Costa, Bruno R, et al.
Publicado: (2014)

Helping people make well-informed decisions about health care: old and new challenges to achieving the aim of the Cochrane Collaboration
por: Oxman, Andrew D
Publicado: (2013)

Divine intervention? A Cochrane review on intercessory prayer gone beyond science and reason
por: Jørgensen, Karsten Juhl, et al.
Publicado: (2009)

Quo Vadis, Cochrane Collaboration?
por: Jokstad, Asbjorn
Publicado: (2019)

Methodological Bias Can Lead the Cochrane Collaboration to Irrelevance in Public Health Decision-Making
por: Montresor, Antonio, et al.
Publicado: (2015)

Adjusting trial results for biases in meta‐analysis: combining data‐based evidence on bias with detailed trial assessment
por: Rhodes, K. M., et al.
Publicado: (2019)

Tools for assessing quality and risk of bias in Mendelian randomization studies: a systematic review
por: Spiga, Francesca, et al.
Publicado: (2022)

Reporting of drug trial funding sources and author financial conflicts of interest in Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses: a cross-sectional study
por: Turner, Kimberly, et al.
Publicado: (2020)

Ghost Authorship in Industry-Initiated Randomised Trials
por: Gøtzsche, Peter C, et al.
Publicado: (2007)

General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis
por: Krogsbøll, Lasse T, et al.
Publicado: (2012)

Discrepancies in sample size calculations and data analyses reported in randomised trials: comparison of publications with protocols
por: Chan, An-Wen, et al.
Publicado: (2008)

Cannot write session to /tmp/vufind_sessions/sess_inno2bbspdpu54admg06k38v0k