Turner, RM;
Rhodes, KM;
Jones, HE;
Higgins, J;
Haskins, J;
Whiting, P;
Hróbjartsson, A;
... Savović, J; + view all
(2020)
Agreement was moderate between data-based and opinion-based assessments of biases affecting randomised trials within meta-analyses.
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
, 125
pp. 16-25.
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.05.009.
Preview |
Text
Turner_PIIS0895435619306341.pdf - Published Version Download (1MB) | Preview |
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Randomised trials included in meta-analyses are often affected by bias caused by methodological flaws or limitations, but the degree of bias is unknown. Two proposed methods adjust trial results for bias using: (1) empirical evidence from published meta-epidemiological studies; or (2) expert opinion. METHODS: We investigated agreement between data-based and opinion-based approaches to assessing bias in each of four domains: sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding and incomplete outcome data. From each sampled meta-analysis, a pair of trials with the highest and lowest empirical model-based bias estimates was selected. Independent assessors were asked which trial within each pair was judged more biased on the basis of detailed trial design summaries. RESULTS: Assessors judged trials to be equally biased in 68% of pairs evaluated. When assessors judged one trial as more biased, the proportion of judgements agreeing with the model-based ranking was highest for allocation concealment (79%) and blinding (79%) and lower for sequence generation (59%) and incomplete outcome data (56%). CONCLUSIONS: Most trial pairs found to be discrepant empirically were judged to be equally biased by assessors. We found moderate agreement between opinion and data-based evidence in pairs where assessors ranked one trial as more biased.
| Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Title: | Agreement was moderate between data-based and opinion-based assessments of biases affecting randomised trials within meta-analyses |
| Location: | United States |
| Open access status: | An open access version is available from UCL Discovery |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.05.009 |
| Publisher version: | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.05.009 |
| Language: | English |
| Additional information: | Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
| Keywords: | Bias, Meta-analysis, Randomised trials, Systematic reviews |
| UCL classification: | UCL UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Population Health Sciences > Inst of Clinical Trials and Methodology UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Population Health Sciences > Inst of Clinical Trials and Methodology > MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL |
| URI: | https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10098132 |
Archive Staff Only
 |
View Item |
