ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2017
Assessing Risk of Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials for Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Revictimization as a high-risk factor for development of posttraumatic stress disorder: a systematic review of the literature.Revista brasileira de psiquiatria (Sao Paulo, Brazil : 1999)Pooled it
- Mendelian Randomization Using the Druggable Genome Reveals Genetically Supported Drug Targets for Psychiatric Disorders.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2023Article
- Risk of bias judgments for random sequence generation in Cochrane systematic reviews were frequently not in line with Cochrane Handbook.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
- Childhood Sexual Abuse and Indicators of Immune Activity: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2018Article
- Risk of Bias in Randomized Clinical Trials on Psychological Therapies for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in Adults.Chronic stress (Thousand Oaks, Calif.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo determine construct validity and reliability indicators of the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool in the context of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
methodsConfirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate a unidimensional model consisting of 9 RoB categorical indicators evaluated across 94 RCTs addressing interventions for ASD.
resultsOnly five of the nine original RoB items returned good fit indices and so were retained in the analysis. Only one of this five had very high factor loadings. The remaining four indicators had more measurement error than common variance with the RoB latent factor. Together, the five indicators showed poor reliability (ω = 0.687; 95% CI: 0.613-0.761).
conclusionAlthough the Cochrane model of RoB for ASD exhibited good fit indices, the majorities of the items have more residual variance than common variance and, therefore, did not adequately capture the RoB in ASD intervention trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.