Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32416338›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2020

Agreement was moderate between data-based and opinion-based assessments of biases affecting randomized trials within meta-analyses.

Rebecca M Turner, Kirsty M Rhodes, Hayley E Jones, Julian P T Higgins, Jessica A Haskins, Penny F Whiting, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson, Deborah M Caldwell, Richard W Morris, Barnaby C Reeves and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. A Review of Methods for Research Synthesis.Statistics in medicine · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Rebecca M TurnerMRC Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK; MRC Biostatistics Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. Electronic address: becky.turner@ucl.ac.uk.
Kirsty M RhodesMRC Biostatistics Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Statistical Innovation, Oncology Biometrics, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK.
Hayley E JonesPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Julian P T HigginsPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Jessica A HaskinsPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Penny F WhitingPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Asbjørn HróbjartssonCentre for Evidence-Based Medicine Odense (CEBMO), Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark; Open Patient data Explorative Network (OPEN), Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Deborah M CaldwellPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Richard W MorrisPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Barnaby C ReevesClinical Trials and Evaluation Unit, Bristol Trials Centre, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Helen V WorthingtonDivision of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Isabelle BoutronCentre d'Épidémiologie Clinique, Hôpital Hôtel-Dieu, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France; Team METHODS, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics-CRESS Inserm UMR1153, Paris, France; Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France.
Jelena SavovićPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0701659Medical Research Council MC_EX_MR/K014587/1Medical Research Council MC_U105260558Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/5Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/21Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1Medical Research Council MR/M014533/1Medical Research Council U105260558
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveRandomized trials included in meta-analyses are often affected by bias caused by methodological flaws or limitations, but the degree of bias is unknown. Two proposed methods adjust the trial results for bias using empirical evidence from published meta-epidemiological studies or expert opinion.

methodsWe investigated agreement between data-based and opinion-based approaches to assessing bias in each of four domains: sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, and incomplete outcome data. From each sampled meta-analysis, a pair of trials with the highest and lowest empirical model-based bias estimates was selected. Independent assessors were asked which trial within each pair was judged more biased on the basis of detailed trial design summaries.

resultsAssessors judged trials to be equally biased in 68% of pairs evaluated. When assessors judged one trial as more biased, the proportion of judgments agreeing with the model-based ranking was highest for allocation concealment (79%) and blinding (79%) and lower for sequence generation (59%) and incomplete outcome data (56%).

conclusionMost trial pairs found to be discrepant empirically were judged to be equally biased by assessors. We found moderate agreement between opinion and data-based evidence in pairs where assessors ranked one trial as more biased.

Indexed as

AttitudeBiasHumansJudgmentMeta-Analysis as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignBiasMeta-analysisRandomized trialsSystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID32416338
PMCPMC7482431

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.