Currently there is no tool designed specifically to assess the risk of bias in the design, conduct or analysis of systematic reviews. ROBIS (Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews), which was developed lately, aims mainly to assess the risk of bias in the conduct and result interpretation of systematic reviews relating to interventions, etiology, diagnosis and prognosis, as well as the relevance of the systematic review questions and the practice questions that their users want to address. This paper aims to introduce the ROBIS tool to Chinese systematic review developers, guideline developers and other researchers to promote the comprehension of it and its application, so as to improve the quality of systematic reviews in China.
ObjectiveTo interpret ROBIS, a new tool to evaluate the risk of bias in systematic reviews, to promote the comprehension of it and its proper application. MethodsWe 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. ResultsThe 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. ConclusionROBIS 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.
ObjectivesTo comprehensively evaluate the methodological quality and applicability of the results of systematic reviews on acupuncture treatment for primary depression.MethodsWeb of Science, EMbase, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, CBM, WanFang Data and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect systematic reviews/meta-analyses on acupuncture treatment for primary depression from inception to December 5th, 2018. Two researchers independently screened and extracted data by using tools of AMSTAR 2 to evaluate the methodological quality, using ROBIS to assess risk of bias, and using CASP-S.R to evaluate the applicability of the results.ResultsA total of 18 systematic reviews/meta-analyses were included, and all focused on acupuncture intervention, including 2 primary outcome indicators. According to AMSTAR 2 evaluation results, there were 4 high quality studies, 12 medium quality studies and 2 low quality studies; ROBIS results found 10 high bias risk studies, 7 low bias risk studies and 1 unclear; CASP-S.R showed only 4 design studies applicable to local individuals, and there were no studies on the relationship between design benefits, hazards and costs.ConclusionsThe quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses for acupuncture treatment of primary depression is moderate, however with a certain bias. Most studies may not directly benefit local individuals. All studies have no relationship with cost hazards. It is expected for further reviewers to strictly follow systematic evaluation method to improve research quality and reduce bias, while the applicability of the systematic review to individuals from different regions should be considered as well as the relationship between the benefit and cost hazard. In addition, more valid RCTs are required to provide higher quality evidence and explore correlated and comprehensive mechanism.
ObjectiveTo systematically summarize and evaluate the existing evidence of Qishen Yiqi dropping pill (QSYQ) in the treatment of chronic heart failure (CHF), and to evaluate its quality. MethodsThe PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMbase, Web of Science, CNKI, CBM, WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect systematic reviews/meta-analyses(SRs/MAs) related to objectives from inception to December 31, 2022. Two researchers independently screened the literature and extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality, risk of bias, reporting quality, and quality of evidence of included SRs/MAs by using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), the Risk of Bias in Systematic(ROBIS) scale, the list of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis(PRISMA), and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. ResultsThis overview included 17 SRs/MAs. The methodological quality, reporting quality, risk of bias, and quality of evidence for outcome measures of SRs/MAs were all unsatisfactory. All SRs/MAs were of low quality according to the results of the AMSTAR-2 assessment. And only a small number of SRs/MAs were assessed as low risk of bias based on the results of the ROBIS assessment. The evaluation results of the PRISMA checklist showed that the report quality of the 24 studies included was relatively complete. According to the GRADE system evaluation results, 94% of the 84 outcome indicators were low-quality and very low-quality evidence. Limitations were the main factors leading to their degradation, followed by publication bias, inconsistency, imprecision and indirectness. ConclusionAt present, QSYQ has good clinical efficacy in the treatment of CHF, but the standardization and scientificity of clinical research and secondary research reports are insufficient, resulting in low quality of clinical recommendations evidence. In the future, it is necessary to further standardize and improve the quality of clinical and secondary research.