Objective To interpret ROBIS, a new tool to evaluate the risk of bias in systematic reviews, to promote the comprehension of it and its proper application.
Methods We explained each item of ROBIS tool, used it to evaluate the risk of bias of a selected intervention review whose title was Cyclophosphamide for Primary Nephrotic Syndrome of Children: A Systematic Review, and judged the risk of bias in the review.
Results The selected systematic review as a whole was rated as “high risk of bias”, because there existed high risk of bias in domain 2 to 4, namely identification and selection of studies, data collection and study appraisal, synthesis and findings. The risk of bias in domain 1 (study eligibility criteria) was low. The relevance of identified studies and the review’s research question was appropriately considered and the reviewers avoided emphasizing results on the basis of their statistical significance.
Conclusion ROBIS is a new tool worthy of being recommended to evaluate risk of bias in systematic reviews. Reviewers should use ROBIS items as standards to conduct and produce high quality systematic reviews.
Citation：
DINGHong-fan, WUQiong-fang, YANGNan, DENGWei, WANGQi, YAOLiang, WANGXiao-qin, WEIDang, CHENYao-long, DULiang. Interpretation of ROBIS Tool in Evaluating the Risk of Bias of a Selected Systematic Review. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2016, 16(1): 115-121. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.20160021
Copy
Copyright © the editorial department of Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine of West China Medical Publisher. All rights reserved
| 1. |
孙嫱, 沈颖, 彭晓霞, 等. 环磷酰胺治疗儿童肾病综合征随机对照试验的系统评价. 中国循证儿科杂志, 2006, 1(2): 89-98.
|
| 2. |
李强. 临床疗效研究的金方案: 随机对照试验. 世界华人消化杂志, 1999, 7(8): 697-698.
|
| 3. |
Higgins J P T. Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available at: www.cochrane-handbook.org.
|
| 4. |
Beynon R, Leeflang MM, McDonald S, et al. Search strategies to identify diagnostic accuracy studies in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.MR000022.pub3/full.
|
| 5. |
McGowan J, Sampson M, Lefebvre C. An evidence based checklist for the peer review of electronic search strategies (PRESS EBC). Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 2010, 5(1): 149-154.
|
| 6. |
Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. BMJ, 2011, 343: d5928.
|
| 7. |
Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med, 2011, 155(8): 529-536.
|
| 8. |
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.
|
| 9. |
Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ, 2001, 323(7303): 42-46.
|
| 10. |
Sterne JA, Juni P, Schulz KF, et al. Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in 'meta -epidemiological' research. Stat Med, 2002, 21(11): 1513-1524.
|
| 11. |
Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: A simple funnel -plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 2000, 56(2): 455-463.
|
- 1. 孙嫱, 沈颖, 彭晓霞, 等. 环磷酰胺治疗儿童肾病综合征随机对照试验的系统评价. 中国循证儿科杂志, 2006, 1(2): 89-98.
- 2. 李强. 临床疗效研究的金方案: 随机对照试验. 世界华人消化杂志, 1999, 7(8): 697-698.
- 3. Higgins J P T. Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available at: www.cochrane-handbook.org.
- 4. Beynon R, Leeflang MM, McDonald S, et al. Search strategies to identify diagnostic accuracy studies in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.MR000022.pub3/full.
- 5. McGowan J, Sampson M, Lefebvre C. An evidence based checklist for the peer review of electronic search strategies (PRESS EBC). Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 2010, 5(1): 149-154.
- 6. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. BMJ, 2011, 343: d5928.
- 7. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med, 2011, 155(8): 529-536.
- 8. 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.
- 9. Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ, 2001, 323(7303): 42-46.
- 10. Sterne JA, Juni P, Schulz KF, et al. Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in 'meta -epidemiological' research. Stat Med, 2002, 21(11): 1513-1524.
- 11. Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: A simple funnel -plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 2000, 56(2): 455-463.
