ArticleResearch synthesis methods2026
The application of ROBINS-I guidance in systematic reviews of non-randomised studies: A descriptive study.
Article in Research synthesis methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 4 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparative analysis of robotic- and endoscopic-assisted minimally invasive nipple-areola complex-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer: a meta-analysis with subgroup analyses.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Gene-Diet Interactions in Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies and Clinical Trials.Nutrients · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical efficacy and platform-specific analysis of robotic navigation systems in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Effect of nurse-led phlebotomy on iron stores, insulin resistance, and blood lipids: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Effects of Dry-Cured Ham Consumption on Cardiometabolic and Vascular Health in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Human Intervention Studies.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Review
- Exploratory meta-analysis of the effect of music intervention on arousal promotion in patients with disorders of consciousness: evidence from controlled studies.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Review
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
Abstract
The ROBINS-I tool is a commonly used tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSI) included in systematic reviews. The reporting of ROBINS-I results is important for decision-makers using systematic reviews to understand the weaknesses of the evidence. In particular, systematic review authors should apply the tool according to the guidance provided. This study aims to describe how ROBINS-I guidance is currently applied by review authors. In January 2023, we undertook a citation search and screened titles and abstracts of records published in the previous 6 months. We included systematic reviews of non-randomised studies of intervention where ROBINS-I had been used for risk-of-bias assessment. Based on 10 criteria, we summarised the diverse ways in which reviews deviated from or reported the use of ROBINS-I. In total, 492 reviews met our inclusion criteria. Only one review met all the expectations of the ROBINS-I guidance. A small proportion of reviews deviated from the seven standard domains (3%), judgements (13%), or in other ways (1%). Of the 476 (97%) reviews that reported some ROBINS-I results, only 57 (12%) reviews reported ROBINS-I results at the outcome level compared with 203 reviews that reported ROBINS-I results at the study level alone. Most systematic reviews of NRSIs do not fully apply the ROBINS-I guidance. This raises concerns around the validity of the ROBINS-I results reported and the use of the evidence from these reviews in decision-making.
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.