Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Risk-of-bias assessment using Cochrane's revised tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) was useful but challenging and resource-intensive: observations from a systematic review
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Risk-of-bias assessment using Cochrane's revised tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) was useful but challenging and resource-intensive: observations from a systematic review
Do you wish to request the book?
Risk-of-bias assessment using Cochrane's revised tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) was useful but challenging and resource-intensive: observations from a systematic review
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Risk-of-bias assessment using Cochrane's revised tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) was useful but challenging and resource-intensive: observations from a systematic review
2023
Overview
To report our experience using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2).
Two reviewers independently applied RoB 2 to results of interest in a large systematic review of complex interventions and reached consensus. We recorded the time taken, and noted and discussed our difficulties using the tool, and the resolutions we adopted. We explored the time taken with regression analysis and summarized our experience of implementing the tool.
We assessed risk of bias in 860 results of interest in 113 studies. Staff resource averaged 358 minutes per study (SD 183). Number of results (β = 22) and reports (β = 14) per study and experience of the team (β = −6) significantly affected assessment time. To implement the tool consistently, we developed cut points for missingness and considerations of balance regarding missingness, assumed some concerns with intervention deviations unless otherwise prevented or investigated, some concerns with measurements from unblinded self-reporting participants, and judged low risk of selection for certain dichotomous outcomes despite the absence of an analysis plan.
The RoB 2 tool and guidance are useful but resource-intensive and challenging to implement. Critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines should detail risk of bias implementation. Improved guidance focusing on implementation could assist reviewers.
Publisher
Elsevier Inc,Elsevier Limited
Subject
