Back to Search Start Over

Methodologic quality and risk-of-bias in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions: a review of methods

Authors :
Cristine Miron Stefani
Liliana Vicente Melo de Lucas Rezende
Lia Rosana Honnef
Luciana Butini Oliveira
Nathan da Cruz Lopes
Carla Massignan
Graziela De Luca Canto
Júlia Meller Dias de Oliveira
Source :
Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, Vol 4 (2022)
Publication Year :
2022
Publisher :
Escola Bahiana de Medicina e Saúde Pública, 2022.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the characteristics of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions that assessed or did not methodologic quality/risk-of-bias of included studies. Additionally, to analyze methodologic features of those assessing the methodologic quality/risk-of-bias. METHODS: PubMed database was searched. From 25,571 systematic reviews retrieved, a random sample of 1,025 was screened. Frequencies were used to describe outcomes. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regressions were performed to test the associations with methodologic quality/risk-of-bias results assessment. In a second analysis, systematic reviews that assessed methodologic quality/risk of bias were dichotomized according to the design of included studies (randomized clinical trials-only versus non-randomized studies of intervention or a combination of both). RESULTS: 303 systematic reviews were fully analyzed. Methodologic quality/risk of bias was assessed by 278 (92%). Methodologic quality/risk-of-bias assessment was associated with a higher number of databases searched (>4, P= 0.008), the presence of meta-analysis (P= 0.005), and the design of included studies (randomized clinical trials-only, P= 0.042). The chance of using a suitable tool and a tool designed for risk-of-bias assessment rather than methodologic quality was higher for randomized clinical trials-only systematic reviews (P< 0.05). The most used tool was Cochrane’s RoB Tool without a clear studies’ overall risk classification system. CONCLUSION: methodologic quality/risk-of-bias assessment was associated with included studies’ design (randomized clinical trials-only), a meta-analysis of data, and the number of databases searched (>4). The most used tool was Cochrane’s RoB Tool, with no clearly defined rating system. Methodologic quality/risk-of-bias assessment methods description, results, and impacts on meta-analysis, the certainty of evidence, and systematic reviews’ results are still to be consistently addressed.

Details

Language :
English, Portuguese
ISSN :
2675021X
Volume :
4
Database :
Directory of Open Access Journals
Journal :
Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
edsdoj.8b8019b48b8448ccbed6c817b97f2317
Document Type :
article
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.17267/2675-021Xevidence.2022.e4067