ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2020
Risk of Bias and Quality of Reporting in Colon and Rectal Cancer Systematic Reviews Cited by National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trends in Volume, Timeliness, and Reporting Quality of Oncology Systematic and Scoping Reviews: A 25-Year Analysis.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Reliability and reproducibility of systematic reviews informing the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans: a pilot study.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2025Article
- Basics of Sustainable Diets and Tools for Assessing Dietary Sustainability: A Primer for Researchers and Policy Actors.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Over half of clinical practice guidelines use non-systematic methods to inform recommendations: A methods study.PloS one · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGiven the changing landscape of colorectal cancer, systematic reviews are likely to play a key role in advancing the understanding of prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional investigation of the risk of bias and reporting quality of systematic reviews referenced by colon and rectal cancer National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. We used two widely accepted tools: Risk of Bias in Systematic reviews (ROBIS) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).
resultsUsing ROBIS, only 3 (4.8%) systematic reviews were judged with low risk of bias, 35 (55.6%) systematic reviews were judged with unclear risk of bias, and 25 (39.7%) systematic reviews were judged with high risk of bias. Across all systematic reviews, the individual bias domains at the highest risk of bias were domains 1 (protocol and eligibility criteria) and 2 (methods to identify and select studies). Across all studies, the median adherence to PRISMA was 74.1% (IQR 69.2-80.0%), corresponding to approximately 20 of 27 items.
conclusionsSystematic reviews cited in NCCN guidelines for colon and rectal cancer are frequently at unclear or high risk of bias and do not report key systematic review items that are important for the critical appraisal of results.
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.