ArticleBMJ open2026
Risk-of-bias assessment in prognostic cohort studies: a methodological comparison study of structured appraisal tools in acute pulmonary embolism research.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the reliability of four commonly used structured tools for risk-of-bias assessment in prognostic cohort studies and evaluate their agreement with expert appraisal.
designMethodological comparison study.
settingSecondary analysis of published prognostic cohort studies in patients with acute pulmonary embolism from a previously conducted systematic review.
participantsSixty-three cohort studies assessing the prognostic role of echocardiography in patients with acute pulmonary embolism. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Four independent reviewers assessed study quality/risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), Risk Of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I), Quality In Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). Concomitantly and independently, expert reviewers' implicit global judgements were used as an external comparator. Inter-rater reliability, agreement with expert appraisal, internal consistency and floor/ceiling effects were assessed.
resultsInter-rater agreement was fair for NOS (Gwet's agreement coefficient 1, 0.25, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.34), ROBINS-I (0.38, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.47) and QUADAS-2 (0.35, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.43) and almost perfect for QUIPS (0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.93). Agreement with expert appraisal was limited for all tools except ROBINS-I, which showed fair concordance. QUIPS frequently classified studies as low risk of bias, suggesting potential overestimation of study quality. Internal consistency was generally low across tools, while ceiling effects were observed for NOS and QUIPS. ROBINS-I showed the most balanced distribution of ratings.
conclusionsStructured tools for risk-of-bias assessment in prognostic cohort studies have variable reliability and limited agreement with expert appraisal. ROBINS-I showed the strongest concordance with expert judgement, whereas QUIPS may provide optimistic ratings. These findings support further refinement and standardisation of risk-of-bias assessment methods for observational prognostic research.
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.