ArticleBMJ open2019
Disagreements in risk of bias assessment for randomised controlled trials included in more than one Cochrane systematic reviews: a research on research study using cross-sectional design.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 7 of them syntheses 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Association between HIV and acquisition of rifamycin resistance with first-line TB treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Pooled it
- The effectiveness of personalised surveillance and aftercare in breast cancer follow-up: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Pooled it
- Photobiomodulation combination therapy as a new insight in neurological disorders: a comprehensive systematic review.BMC neurology · 2024Pooled it
- Systematic review of hematophagous arthropods present in cattle in France.Parasite (Paris, France) · 2023Pooled it
- Living through the psychological consequences of COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review of effective mitigating interventions.BMJ open · 2022Pooled it
- Do manual therapies have a specific autonomic effect? An overview of systematic reviews.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Evaluation of the replicability of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of the effects of health interventions.Research synthesis methods · 2026Article
- Using a large language model (ChatGPT) to assess risk of bias in randomized controlled trials of medical interventions: protocol for a pilot study of interrater agreement with human reviewers.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Variability and Advancements in ChatGPT Risk of Bias Assessments: A Replication and Comparative Analysis.Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Disagreements in risk of bias assessment for randomized controlled trials in hypertension-related Cochrane reviews.Trials · 2024Article
- A new method for testing reproducibility in systematic reviews was developed, but needs more testing.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAssess the frequency and reasons for disagreements in risk of bias assessments for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) included in more than one Cochrane review.
designResearch on research study, using cross-sectional design. DATA SOURCES: 2796 Cochrane reviews published between March 2011 and September 2014. DATA SELECTION: RCTs included in more than one review. DATA EXTRACTION: Risk of bias assessment and support for judgement for five key risk of bias items. DATA SYNTHESIS: For each item, we compared risk of bias assessment made in each review and calculated proportion of agreement. Two reviewers independently analysed 50% of all disagreements by comparing support for each judgement with information from study report to evaluate whether disagreements were related to a difference in information (eg, contact the study author) or a difference in interpretation (same support for judgement but different interpretation). They also identified main reasons for different interpretation.
results1604 RCTs were included in more than one review. Proportion of agreement ranged from 57% (770/1348 trials) for incomplete outcome data to 81% for random sequence generation (1193/1466). Most common source of disagreement was difference in interpretation of the same information, ranging from 65% (88/136) for random sequence generation to 90% (56/62) for blinding of participants and personnel. Access to different information explained 32/136 (24%) disagreements for random sequence generation and 38/205 (19%) for allocation concealment. Disagreements related to difference in interpretation were frequently related to incomplete or unclear reporting in the study report (83% of disagreements related to different interpretation for random sequence generation).
conclusionsRisk of bias judgements of RCTs included in more than one Cochrane review differed substantially. Most disagreements were related to a difference in interpretation of an incomplete or unclear description in the study report. A clearer guidance on common causes of incomplete information may improve agreement.
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.