Cargando…
Assessments of attrition bias in Cochrane systematic reviews are highly inconsistent and thus hindering trial comparability
BACKGROUND: An important part of the systematic review methodology is appraisal of the risk of bias in included studies. Cochrane systematic reviews are considered golden standard regarding systematic review methodology, but Cochrane’s instructions for assessing risk of attrition bias are vague, whi...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6451283/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30953448 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0717-9 |
_version_ | 1783409167944384512 |
---|---|
author | Babic, Andrija Tokalic, Ruzica Amílcar Silva Cunha, João Novak, Ivana Suto, Jelena Vidak, Marin Miosic, Ivana Vuka, Ivana Poklepovic Pericic, Tina Puljak, Livia |
author_facet | Babic, Andrija Tokalic, Ruzica Amílcar Silva Cunha, João Novak, Ivana Suto, Jelena Vidak, Marin Miosic, Ivana Vuka, Ivana Poklepovic Pericic, Tina Puljak, Livia |
author_sort | Babic, Andrija |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: An important part of the systematic review methodology is appraisal of the risk of bias in included studies. Cochrane systematic reviews are considered golden standard regarding systematic review methodology, but Cochrane’s instructions for assessing risk of attrition bias are vague, which may lead to inconsistencies in authors’ assessments. The aim of this study was to analyze consistency of judgments and support for judgments of attrition bias in Cochrane reviews of interventions published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). METHODS: We analyzed Cochrane reviews published from July 2015 to June 2016 in the CDSR. We extracted data on number of included trials, judgment of attrition risk of bias for each included trial (low, unclear or high) and accompanying support for the judgment (supporting explanation). We also assessed how many Cochrane reviews had different judgments for the same supporting explanations. RESULTS: In the main analysis we included 10,292 judgments and supporting explanations for attrition bias from 729 Cochrane reviews. We categorized supporting explanations for those judgments into four categories and we found that most of the supporting explanations were unclear. Numerical indicators for percent of attrition, as well as statistics related to attrition were judged very differently. One third of Cochrane review authors had more than one category of supporting explanation; some had up to four different categories. Inconsistencies were found even with the number of judgments, names of risk of bias domains and different judgments for the same supporting explanations in the same Cochrane review. CONCLUSION: We found very high inconsistency in methods of appraising risk of attrition bias in recent Cochrane reviews. Systematic review authors need clear guidance about different categories they should assess and judgments for those explanations. Clear instructions about appraising risk of attrition bias will improve reliability of the Cochrane’s risk of bias tool, help authors in making decisions about risk of bias and help in making reliable decisions in healthcare. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-019-0717-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6451283 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-64512832019-04-17 Assessments of attrition bias in Cochrane systematic reviews are highly inconsistent and thus hindering trial comparability Babic, Andrija Tokalic, Ruzica Amílcar Silva Cunha, João Novak, Ivana Suto, Jelena Vidak, Marin Miosic, Ivana Vuka, Ivana Poklepovic Pericic, Tina Puljak, Livia BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: An important part of the systematic review methodology is appraisal of the risk of bias in included studies. Cochrane systematic reviews are considered golden standard regarding systematic review methodology, but Cochrane’s instructions for assessing risk of attrition bias are vague, which may lead to inconsistencies in authors’ assessments. The aim of this study was to analyze consistency of judgments and support for judgments of attrition bias in Cochrane reviews of interventions published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). METHODS: We analyzed Cochrane reviews published from July 2015 to June 2016 in the CDSR. We extracted data on number of included trials, judgment of attrition risk of bias for each included trial (low, unclear or high) and accompanying support for the judgment (supporting explanation). We also assessed how many Cochrane reviews had different judgments for the same supporting explanations. RESULTS: In the main analysis we included 10,292 judgments and supporting explanations for attrition bias from 729 Cochrane reviews. We categorized supporting explanations for those judgments into four categories and we found that most of the supporting explanations were unclear. Numerical indicators for percent of attrition, as well as statistics related to attrition were judged very differently. One third of Cochrane review authors had more than one category of supporting explanation; some had up to four different categories. Inconsistencies were found even with the number of judgments, names of risk of bias domains and different judgments for the same supporting explanations in the same Cochrane review. CONCLUSION: We found very high inconsistency in methods of appraising risk of attrition bias in recent Cochrane reviews. Systematic review authors need clear guidance about different categories they should assess and judgments for those explanations. Clear instructions about appraising risk of attrition bias will improve reliability of the Cochrane’s risk of bias tool, help authors in making decisions about risk of bias and help in making reliable decisions in healthcare. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-019-0717-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-04-05 /pmc/articles/PMC6451283/ /pubmed/30953448 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0717-9 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Babic, Andrija Tokalic, Ruzica Amílcar Silva Cunha, João Novak, Ivana Suto, Jelena Vidak, Marin Miosic, Ivana Vuka, Ivana Poklepovic Pericic, Tina Puljak, Livia Assessments of attrition bias in Cochrane systematic reviews are highly inconsistent and thus hindering trial comparability |
title | Assessments of attrition bias in Cochrane systematic reviews are highly inconsistent and thus hindering trial comparability |
title_full | Assessments of attrition bias in Cochrane systematic reviews are highly inconsistent and thus hindering trial comparability |
title_fullStr | Assessments of attrition bias in Cochrane systematic reviews are highly inconsistent and thus hindering trial comparability |
title_full_unstemmed | Assessments of attrition bias in Cochrane systematic reviews are highly inconsistent and thus hindering trial comparability |
title_short | Assessments of attrition bias in Cochrane systematic reviews are highly inconsistent and thus hindering trial comparability |
title_sort | assessments of attrition bias in cochrane systematic reviews are highly inconsistent and thus hindering trial comparability |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6451283/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30953448 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0717-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT babicandrija assessmentsofattritionbiasincochranesystematicreviewsarehighlyinconsistentandthushinderingtrialcomparability AT tokalicruzica assessmentsofattritionbiasincochranesystematicreviewsarehighlyinconsistentandthushinderingtrialcomparability AT amilcarsilvacunhajoao assessmentsofattritionbiasincochranesystematicreviewsarehighlyinconsistentandthushinderingtrialcomparability AT novakivana assessmentsofattritionbiasincochranesystematicreviewsarehighlyinconsistentandthushinderingtrialcomparability AT sutojelena assessmentsofattritionbiasincochranesystematicreviewsarehighlyinconsistentandthushinderingtrialcomparability AT vidakmarin assessmentsofattritionbiasincochranesystematicreviewsarehighlyinconsistentandthushinderingtrialcomparability AT miosicivana assessmentsofattritionbiasincochranesystematicreviewsarehighlyinconsistentandthushinderingtrialcomparability AT vukaivana assessmentsofattritionbiasincochranesystematicreviewsarehighlyinconsistentandthushinderingtrialcomparability AT poklepovicpericictina assessmentsofattritionbiasincochranesystematicreviewsarehighlyinconsistentandthushinderingtrialcomparability AT puljaklivia assessmentsofattritionbiasincochranesystematicreviewsarehighlyinconsistentandthushinderingtrialcomparability |