Application of Risk of Bias Tool in Cochrane Systematic Reviews on Acupuncture_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

 WUTing-ting ^1,2,3 ^# ,  LIUDan-lu ^2,3,4 ^# , HUANGJiao ^2,4 , MAIYue-fen ^2,5 , ZHAOXu ^2,5 , SUNWan-ting ^2,5 , LIUYa-li ^2,3 , HUOXing-chen ^2,4 , WEIMao-qiang ^2,4 , LIYu-quan ^2,4 , KEWen-bo ^2,4 ,  YANGKe-hu ^2,3,4

1. Department of the Second Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730050, China;
2. Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China;
3. Key Laboratory of Clinical Translational Research and Evidence-based Medicine of Gansu Province, Lanzhou 730000, China;
4. The First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China;
5. The Second Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730050, China;

Corresponding author：

YANGKe-hu, Email: yangkh2006@163.com

Keywords：

Risk of bias; Systematic review; Acupuncture

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.20140061

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To evaluate whether and to what extent the new risk of bias (ROB) tool has been used in Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) on acupuncture. Methods We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review (CDSR) in issue 12, 2011. Two reviewers independently selected CSRs which primarily focused on acupuncture and moxibustion. Then the data involving in essential information, the information about ROB (sequence generation, allocation concealment, blindness, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting and other potential sources of bias) and GRADE were extracted and statistically analyzed. Results In total, 41CSRs were identified, of which 19 CSRs were updated reviews. Thirty-three were published between 2009 and 2011. 60.98% reviews used the Cochrane Handbook as their ROB assessment tool. Most CSRs gave information about sequence generation, allocation concealment, blindness, and incomplete outcome data, however, half of them (54.55%, 8/69) showed selective reporting or other potential sources of bias. Conclusion "Risk of bias" tools have been used in most CSRs on acupuncture since 2009. However, the lack of evaluation items still remains.

Citation： WUTing-ting, LIUDan-lu, HUANGJiao, MAIYue-fen, ZHAOXu, SUNWan-ting, LIUYa-li, HUOXing-chen, WEIMao-qiang, LIYu-quan, KEWen-bo, YANGKe-hu. Application of Risk of Bias Tool in Cochrane Systematic Reviews on Acupuncture. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2014, 14(3): 361-364. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.20140061 Copy

1.	杨声坪, 闫先侠, 刘建强, 等.随机对照试验质量评价标准的比较分析.循证医学, 2010, 10(6):369-373.
2.	Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1. 0[updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. Available at:www.cochrane-handbook.org.2008.
3.	Liu Y, Yang S, Dai J, et al. Risk of bias tool in systematic reviews/meta-analyses of acupuncture in Chinese Journals. PLoS One, 2011, 6(12):e28130.
4.	Ferreira CA, Loureiro CAS, Saconato H, et al. Assessing the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials in the field of dentistry indexed in the Lilacs(Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde) database. Sao Paulo Med J, 2011, 129(2):85-93.
5.	Crocetti MT, Amin DD, Scherer R. Assessment of risk of bias among pediatric randomized controlled trials. Pediatrics, 2010, 126(2):298-305.
6.	Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, et al. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials:an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials, 1995, 16(1):62-73.
7.	Moher D, Jadad AR, Tugwell P. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials:current issues and future directions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 1996, 12(02):195-208.
8.	Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care:Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ, 2001, 323(7303):42-46.
9.	Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, et al. Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol, 1992, 45(3):255-265.
10.	Verhagen AP, De Vet HCW, De Bie RA, et al. The Delphi list:a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol, 1998, 51(12):1235-1241.
11.	Methodology Checklist 2:Randomised Controlled Trials. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network.[2011-11-12]. Available at:http://www.sign.ac.uk/guidelines/fulltext/50/compchecklist.html.
12.	Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials:Is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials, 1996, 17(1):1-12.
13.	Chalmers TC, Smith H, Blackburn B, et al. A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Control Clin Trials, 1981, 2(1):31-49.
14.	Evans M, Pollock A. A score system for evaluating random control clinical trials of prophylaxis of abdominal surgical wound infection. Br J Surg, 1985, 72(4):256-260.
15.	Ter Riet G, Kleunen J, Knipschild P. Acupuncture and chronic pain:a criteria-based meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol, 1990, 43(11):1191-1199.
16.	Dennison DK.Components of a randomized clinical trial. J Periodontal Res, 1997, 32(5):430-438.
17.	Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet, 1998, 352(9128):609-613.
18.	马继春, 娜和亚, 毛婧, 等.我国"循证"冠名期刊发表干预类系统评价/Meta分析的现况调查.中国循证医学杂志, 2013, 11(7):896-900.
19.	Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Altman DG. The landscape and lexicon of blinding in randomized trials. Ann Intern Med, 2002, 136(3):254-259.
20.	Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, 等. GRADE指南:Ⅲ.证据质量分级.中国循证医学杂志, 2011, 11(4):451-455.
21.	Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, 等. GRADE指南:IV.证据质量分级-研究的局限性(偏倚风险).中国循证医学杂志, 2011, 11(4):456-463.

1. 杨声坪, 闫先侠, 刘建强, 等.随机对照试验质量评价标准的比较分析.循证医学, 2010, 10(6):369-373.
2. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1. 0[updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. Available at:www.cochrane-handbook.org.2008.
3. Liu Y, Yang S, Dai J, et al. Risk of bias tool in systematic reviews/meta-analyses of acupuncture in Chinese Journals. PLoS One, 2011, 6(12):e28130.
4. Ferreira CA, Loureiro CAS, Saconato H, et al. Assessing the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials in the field of dentistry indexed in the Lilacs(Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde) database. Sao Paulo Med J, 2011, 129(2):85-93.
5. Crocetti MT, Amin DD, Scherer R. Assessment of risk of bias among pediatric randomized controlled trials. Pediatrics, 2010, 126(2):298-305.
6. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, et al. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials:an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials, 1995, 16(1):62-73.
7. Moher D, Jadad AR, Tugwell P. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials:current issues and future directions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 1996, 12(02):195-208.
8. Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care:Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ, 2001, 323(7303):42-46.
9. Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, et al. Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol, 1992, 45(3):255-265.
10. Verhagen AP, De Vet HCW, De Bie RA, et al. The Delphi list:a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol, 1998, 51(12):1235-1241.
11. Methodology Checklist 2:Randomised Controlled Trials. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network.[2011-11-12]. Available at:http://www.sign.ac.uk/guidelines/fulltext/50/compchecklist.html.
12. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials:Is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials, 1996, 17(1):1-12.
13. Chalmers TC, Smith H, Blackburn B, et al. A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Control Clin Trials, 1981, 2(1):31-49.
14. Evans M, Pollock A. A score system for evaluating random control clinical trials of prophylaxis of abdominal surgical wound infection. Br J Surg, 1985, 72(4):256-260.
15. Ter Riet G, Kleunen J, Knipschild P. Acupuncture and chronic pain:a criteria-based meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol, 1990, 43(11):1191-1199.
16. Dennison DK.Components of a randomized clinical trial. J Periodontal Res, 1997, 32(5):430-438.
17. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet, 1998, 352(9128):609-613.
18. 马继春, 娜和亚, 毛婧, 等.我国"循证"冠名期刊发表干预类系统评价/Meta分析的现况调查.中国循证医学杂志, 2013, 11(7):896-900.
19. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Altman DG. The landscape and lexicon of blinding in randomized trials. Ann Intern Med, 2002, 136(3):254-259.
20. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, 等. GRADE指南:Ⅲ.证据质量分级.中国循证医学杂志, 2011, 11(4):451-455.
21. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, 等. GRADE指南:IV.证据质量分级-研究的局限性(偏倚风险).中国循证医学杂志, 2011, 11(4):456-463.

Previous Article
Implementation of Network Meta-Analysis with nlme Package in R Software
Next Article
Brief Introduction of Indirect Comparison

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Application of Risk of Bias Tool in Cochrane Systematic Reviews on Acupuncture

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content