The judgement of biases included in the category “other bias” in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: a systematic survey

Background Clinical decisions are made based on Cochrane reviews, but the implementation of results of evidence syntheses such as Cochrane reviews is problematic if the evidence is not prepared consistently. All systematic reviews should assess the risk of bias (RoB) in included studies, and in Cochrane reviews, this is done by using Cochrane RoB tool. However, the tool is not necessarily applied according to the instructions. In this study, we aimed to determine the types of bias and their corresponding judgements noted in the ‘other bias’ domain of Cochrane RoB tool. Methods We analyzed Cochrane reviews that included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and extracted data regarding ‘other bias’ from the RoB table and accompanying support for the judgment. We categorized different types of other bias. Results We analyzed 768 Cochrane reviews that included 11,369 RCTs. There were 602 (78%) Cochrane reviews that had ‘other bias’ domain in the RoB tool, and they included a total of 7811 RCTs. In the RoB table of 337 Cochrane reviews for at least one of the included trials it was indicated that no other bias was found and supporting explanations were inconsistently judged as low, unclear or high RoB. In the 524 Cochrane reviews that described various sources of other bias, there were 5762 individual types of explanations which we categorized into 31 groups. The judgments of the same supporting explanations were highly inconsistent. We found numerous other inconsistencies in reporting of sources of other bias in Cochrane reviews. Conclusion Cochrane authors mention a wide range of sources of other bias in the RoB tool and they inconsistently judge the same supporting explanations. Inconsistency in appraising risk of other bias hinders reliability and comparability of Cochrane systematic reviews. Discrepant and erroneous judgments of bias in evidence synthesis may hinder implementation of evidence in routine clinical practice and reduce confidence in otherwise trustworthy sources of information. These results can help authors of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews to gain insight into various sources of other bias that can be found in trials, and also to help them avoid mistakes that were recognized in published Cochrane reviews. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Babic, Andrija [verfasserIn] Pijuk, Andela Brázdilová, Lucie Georgieva, Yuliyana Raposo Pereira, Marco António Poklepovic Pericic, Tina Puljak, Livia

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2019

Schlagwörter:	Systematic review Cochrane Risk of bias Other bias inconsistency

Anmerkung:	© The Author(s). 2019

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: BMC medical research methodology - London : BioMed Central, 2001, 19(2019), 1 vom: 11. Apr.
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:19 ; year:2019 ; number:1 ; day:11 ; month:04

Links:	Volltext

DOI / URN:	10.1186/s12874-019-0718-8

Katalog-ID:	SPR027376591

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	SPR027376591
003	DE-627
005	20230520003655.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	201007s2019 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1186/s12874-019-0718-8 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)SPR027376591
035			\|a (SPR)s12874-019-0718-8-e
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
100	1		\|a Babic, Andrija \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	4	\|a The judgement of biases included in the category “other bias” in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: a systematic survey
264		1	\|c 2019
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
500			\|a © The Author(s). 2019
520			\|a Background Clinical decisions are made based on Cochrane reviews, but the implementation of results of evidence syntheses such as Cochrane reviews is problematic if the evidence is not prepared consistently. All systematic reviews should assess the risk of bias (RoB) in included studies, and in Cochrane reviews, this is done by using Cochrane RoB tool. However, the tool is not necessarily applied according to the instructions. In this study, we aimed to determine the types of bias and their corresponding judgements noted in the ‘other bias’ domain of Cochrane RoB tool. Methods We analyzed Cochrane reviews that included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and extracted data regarding ‘other bias’ from the RoB table and accompanying support for the judgment. We categorized different types of other bias. Results We analyzed 768 Cochrane reviews that included 11,369 RCTs. There were 602 (78%) Cochrane reviews that had ‘other bias’ domain in the RoB tool, and they included a total of 7811 RCTs. In the RoB table of 337 Cochrane reviews for at least one of the included trials it was indicated that no other bias was found and supporting explanations were inconsistently judged as low, unclear or high RoB. In the 524 Cochrane reviews that described various sources of other bias, there were 5762 individual types of explanations which we categorized into 31 groups. The judgments of the same supporting explanations were highly inconsistent. We found numerous other inconsistencies in reporting of sources of other bias in Cochrane reviews. Conclusion Cochrane authors mention a wide range of sources of other bias in the RoB tool and they inconsistently judge the same supporting explanations. Inconsistency in appraising risk of other bias hinders reliability and comparability of Cochrane systematic reviews. Discrepant and erroneous judgments of bias in evidence synthesis may hinder implementation of evidence in routine clinical practice and reduce confidence in otherwise trustworthy sources of information. These results can help authors of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews to gain insight into various sources of other bias that can be found in trials, and also to help them avoid mistakes that were recognized in published Cochrane reviews.
650		4	\|a Systematic review \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Cochrane \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Risk of bias \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Other bias inconsistency \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
700	1		\|a Pijuk, Andela \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Brázdilová, Lucie \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Georgieva, Yuliyana \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Raposo Pereira, Marco António \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Poklepovic Pericic, Tina \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Puljak, Livia \|0 (orcid)0000-0002-8467-6061 \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t BMC medical research methodology \|d London : BioMed Central, 2001 \|g 19(2019), 1 vom: 11. Apr. \|w (DE-627)326643818 \|w (DE-600)2041362-2 \|x 1471-2288 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:19 \|g year:2019 \|g number:1 \|g day:11 \|g month:04
856	4	0	\|u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0718-8 \|z kostenfrei \|3 Volltext
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_SPRINGER
912			\|a SSG-OLC-PHA
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_702
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2001
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2006
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2008
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2010
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2011
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2015
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2020
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2021
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2025
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2031
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2038
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2044
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2048
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2050
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2056
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2057
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2061
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2113
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2190
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 19 \|j 2019 \|e 1 \|b 11 \|c 04

Indexfelder

author_variant	a b ab a p ap l b lb y g yg p m a r pma pmar p t p pt ptp l p lp
matchkey_str	article:14712288:2019----::hjdeetfissnlddnhctgrohrisnohaeytmtceiwoi
hierarchy_sort_str	2019
publishDate	2019
allfields	10.1186/s12874-019-0718-8 doi (DE-627)SPR027376591 (SPR)s12874-019-0718-8-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Babic, Andrija verfasserin aut The judgement of biases included in the category “other bias” in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: a systematic survey 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2019 Background Clinical decisions are made based on Cochrane reviews, but the implementation of results of evidence syntheses such as Cochrane reviews is problematic if the evidence is not prepared consistently. All systematic reviews should assess the risk of bias (RoB) in included studies, and in Cochrane reviews, this is done by using Cochrane RoB tool. However, the tool is not necessarily applied according to the instructions. In this study, we aimed to determine the types of bias and their corresponding judgements noted in the ‘other bias’ domain of Cochrane RoB tool. Methods We analyzed Cochrane reviews that included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and extracted data regarding ‘other bias’ from the RoB table and accompanying support for the judgment. We categorized different types of other bias. Results We analyzed 768 Cochrane reviews that included 11,369 RCTs. There were 602 (78%) Cochrane reviews that had ‘other bias’ domain in the RoB tool, and they included a total of 7811 RCTs. In the RoB table of 337 Cochrane reviews for at least one of the included trials it was indicated that no other bias was found and supporting explanations were inconsistently judged as low, unclear or high RoB. In the 524 Cochrane reviews that described various sources of other bias, there were 5762 individual types of explanations which we categorized into 31 groups. The judgments of the same supporting explanations were highly inconsistent. We found numerous other inconsistencies in reporting of sources of other bias in Cochrane reviews. Conclusion Cochrane authors mention a wide range of sources of other bias in the RoB tool and they inconsistently judge the same supporting explanations. Inconsistency in appraising risk of other bias hinders reliability and comparability of Cochrane systematic reviews. Discrepant and erroneous judgments of bias in evidence synthesis may hinder implementation of evidence in routine clinical practice and reduce confidence in otherwise trustworthy sources of information. These results can help authors of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews to gain insight into various sources of other bias that can be found in trials, and also to help them avoid mistakes that were recognized in published Cochrane reviews. Systematic review (dpeaa)DE-He213 Cochrane (dpeaa)DE-He213 Risk of bias (dpeaa)DE-He213 Other bias inconsistency (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pijuk, Andela aut Brázdilová, Lucie aut Georgieva, Yuliyana aut Raposo Pereira, Marco António aut Poklepovic Pericic, Tina aut Puljak, Livia (orcid)0000-0002-8467-6061 aut Enthalten in BMC medical research methodology London : BioMed Central, 2001 19(2019), 1 vom: 11. Apr. (DE-627)326643818 (DE-600)2041362-2 1471-2288 nnns volume:19 year:2019 number:1 day:11 month:04 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0718-8 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 19 2019 1 11 04
spelling	10.1186/s12874-019-0718-8 doi (DE-627)SPR027376591 (SPR)s12874-019-0718-8-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Babic, Andrija verfasserin aut The judgement of biases included in the category “other bias” in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: a systematic survey 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2019 Background Clinical decisions are made based on Cochrane reviews, but the implementation of results of evidence syntheses such as Cochrane reviews is problematic if the evidence is not prepared consistently. All systematic reviews should assess the risk of bias (RoB) in included studies, and in Cochrane reviews, this is done by using Cochrane RoB tool. However, the tool is not necessarily applied according to the instructions. In this study, we aimed to determine the types of bias and their corresponding judgements noted in the ‘other bias’ domain of Cochrane RoB tool. Methods We analyzed Cochrane reviews that included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and extracted data regarding ‘other bias’ from the RoB table and accompanying support for the judgment. We categorized different types of other bias. Results We analyzed 768 Cochrane reviews that included 11,369 RCTs. There were 602 (78%) Cochrane reviews that had ‘other bias’ domain in the RoB tool, and they included a total of 7811 RCTs. In the RoB table of 337 Cochrane reviews for at least one of the included trials it was indicated that no other bias was found and supporting explanations were inconsistently judged as low, unclear or high RoB. In the 524 Cochrane reviews that described various sources of other bias, there were 5762 individual types of explanations which we categorized into 31 groups. The judgments of the same supporting explanations were highly inconsistent. We found numerous other inconsistencies in reporting of sources of other bias in Cochrane reviews. Conclusion Cochrane authors mention a wide range of sources of other bias in the RoB tool and they inconsistently judge the same supporting explanations. Inconsistency in appraising risk of other bias hinders reliability and comparability of Cochrane systematic reviews. Discrepant and erroneous judgments of bias in evidence synthesis may hinder implementation of evidence in routine clinical practice and reduce confidence in otherwise trustworthy sources of information. These results can help authors of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews to gain insight into various sources of other bias that can be found in trials, and also to help them avoid mistakes that were recognized in published Cochrane reviews. Systematic review (dpeaa)DE-He213 Cochrane (dpeaa)DE-He213 Risk of bias (dpeaa)DE-He213 Other bias inconsistency (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pijuk, Andela aut Brázdilová, Lucie aut Georgieva, Yuliyana aut Raposo Pereira, Marco António aut Poklepovic Pericic, Tina aut Puljak, Livia (orcid)0000-0002-8467-6061 aut Enthalten in BMC medical research methodology London : BioMed Central, 2001 19(2019), 1 vom: 11. Apr. (DE-627)326643818 (DE-600)2041362-2 1471-2288 nnns volume:19 year:2019 number:1 day:11 month:04 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0718-8 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 19 2019 1 11 04
allfields_unstemmed	10.1186/s12874-019-0718-8 doi (DE-627)SPR027376591 (SPR)s12874-019-0718-8-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Babic, Andrija verfasserin aut The judgement of biases included in the category “other bias” in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: a systematic survey 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2019 Background Clinical decisions are made based on Cochrane reviews, but the implementation of results of evidence syntheses such as Cochrane reviews is problematic if the evidence is not prepared consistently. All systematic reviews should assess the risk of bias (RoB) in included studies, and in Cochrane reviews, this is done by using Cochrane RoB tool. However, the tool is not necessarily applied according to the instructions. In this study, we aimed to determine the types of bias and their corresponding judgements noted in the ‘other bias’ domain of Cochrane RoB tool. Methods We analyzed Cochrane reviews that included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and extracted data regarding ‘other bias’ from the RoB table and accompanying support for the judgment. We categorized different types of other bias. Results We analyzed 768 Cochrane reviews that included 11,369 RCTs. There were 602 (78%) Cochrane reviews that had ‘other bias’ domain in the RoB tool, and they included a total of 7811 RCTs. In the RoB table of 337 Cochrane reviews for at least one of the included trials it was indicated that no other bias was found and supporting explanations were inconsistently judged as low, unclear or high RoB. In the 524 Cochrane reviews that described various sources of other bias, there were 5762 individual types of explanations which we categorized into 31 groups. The judgments of the same supporting explanations were highly inconsistent. We found numerous other inconsistencies in reporting of sources of other bias in Cochrane reviews. Conclusion Cochrane authors mention a wide range of sources of other bias in the RoB tool and they inconsistently judge the same supporting explanations. Inconsistency in appraising risk of other bias hinders reliability and comparability of Cochrane systematic reviews. Discrepant and erroneous judgments of bias in evidence synthesis may hinder implementation of evidence in routine clinical practice and reduce confidence in otherwise trustworthy sources of information. These results can help authors of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews to gain insight into various sources of other bias that can be found in trials, and also to help them avoid mistakes that were recognized in published Cochrane reviews. Systematic review (dpeaa)DE-He213 Cochrane (dpeaa)DE-He213 Risk of bias (dpeaa)DE-He213 Other bias inconsistency (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pijuk, Andela aut Brázdilová, Lucie aut Georgieva, Yuliyana aut Raposo Pereira, Marco António aut Poklepovic Pericic, Tina aut Puljak, Livia (orcid)0000-0002-8467-6061 aut Enthalten in BMC medical research methodology London : BioMed Central, 2001 19(2019), 1 vom: 11. Apr. (DE-627)326643818 (DE-600)2041362-2 1471-2288 nnns volume:19 year:2019 number:1 day:11 month:04 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0718-8 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 19 2019 1 11 04
allfieldsGer	10.1186/s12874-019-0718-8 doi (DE-627)SPR027376591 (SPR)s12874-019-0718-8-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Babic, Andrija verfasserin aut The judgement of biases included in the category “other bias” in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: a systematic survey 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2019 Background Clinical decisions are made based on Cochrane reviews, but the implementation of results of evidence syntheses such as Cochrane reviews is problematic if the evidence is not prepared consistently. All systematic reviews should assess the risk of bias (RoB) in included studies, and in Cochrane reviews, this is done by using Cochrane RoB tool. However, the tool is not necessarily applied according to the instructions. In this study, we aimed to determine the types of bias and their corresponding judgements noted in the ‘other bias’ domain of Cochrane RoB tool. Methods We analyzed Cochrane reviews that included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and extracted data regarding ‘other bias’ from the RoB table and accompanying support for the judgment. We categorized different types of other bias. Results We analyzed 768 Cochrane reviews that included 11,369 RCTs. There were 602 (78%) Cochrane reviews that had ‘other bias’ domain in the RoB tool, and they included a total of 7811 RCTs. In the RoB table of 337 Cochrane reviews for at least one of the included trials it was indicated that no other bias was found and supporting explanations were inconsistently judged as low, unclear or high RoB. In the 524 Cochrane reviews that described various sources of other bias, there were 5762 individual types of explanations which we categorized into 31 groups. The judgments of the same supporting explanations were highly inconsistent. We found numerous other inconsistencies in reporting of sources of other bias in Cochrane reviews. Conclusion Cochrane authors mention a wide range of sources of other bias in the RoB tool and they inconsistently judge the same supporting explanations. Inconsistency in appraising risk of other bias hinders reliability and comparability of Cochrane systematic reviews. Discrepant and erroneous judgments of bias in evidence synthesis may hinder implementation of evidence in routine clinical practice and reduce confidence in otherwise trustworthy sources of information. These results can help authors of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews to gain insight into various sources of other bias that can be found in trials, and also to help them avoid mistakes that were recognized in published Cochrane reviews. Systematic review (dpeaa)DE-He213 Cochrane (dpeaa)DE-He213 Risk of bias (dpeaa)DE-He213 Other bias inconsistency (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pijuk, Andela aut Brázdilová, Lucie aut Georgieva, Yuliyana aut Raposo Pereira, Marco António aut Poklepovic Pericic, Tina aut Puljak, Livia (orcid)0000-0002-8467-6061 aut Enthalten in BMC medical research methodology London : BioMed Central, 2001 19(2019), 1 vom: 11. Apr. (DE-627)326643818 (DE-600)2041362-2 1471-2288 nnns volume:19 year:2019 number:1 day:11 month:04 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0718-8 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 19 2019 1 11 04
allfieldsSound	10.1186/s12874-019-0718-8 doi (DE-627)SPR027376591 (SPR)s12874-019-0718-8-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Babic, Andrija verfasserin aut The judgement of biases included in the category “other bias” in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: a systematic survey 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2019 Background Clinical decisions are made based on Cochrane reviews, but the implementation of results of evidence syntheses such as Cochrane reviews is problematic if the evidence is not prepared consistently. All systematic reviews should assess the risk of bias (RoB) in included studies, and in Cochrane reviews, this is done by using Cochrane RoB tool. However, the tool is not necessarily applied according to the instructions. In this study, we aimed to determine the types of bias and their corresponding judgements noted in the ‘other bias’ domain of Cochrane RoB tool. Methods We analyzed Cochrane reviews that included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and extracted data regarding ‘other bias’ from the RoB table and accompanying support for the judgment. We categorized different types of other bias. Results We analyzed 768 Cochrane reviews that included 11,369 RCTs. There were 602 (78%) Cochrane reviews that had ‘other bias’ domain in the RoB tool, and they included a total of 7811 RCTs. In the RoB table of 337 Cochrane reviews for at least one of the included trials it was indicated that no other bias was found and supporting explanations were inconsistently judged as low, unclear or high RoB. In the 524 Cochrane reviews that described various sources of other bias, there were 5762 individual types of explanations which we categorized into 31 groups. The judgments of the same supporting explanations were highly inconsistent. We found numerous other inconsistencies in reporting of sources of other bias in Cochrane reviews. Conclusion Cochrane authors mention a wide range of sources of other bias in the RoB tool and they inconsistently judge the same supporting explanations. Inconsistency in appraising risk of other bias hinders reliability and comparability of Cochrane systematic reviews. Discrepant and erroneous judgments of bias in evidence synthesis may hinder implementation of evidence in routine clinical practice and reduce confidence in otherwise trustworthy sources of information. These results can help authors of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews to gain insight into various sources of other bias that can be found in trials, and also to help them avoid mistakes that were recognized in published Cochrane reviews. Systematic review (dpeaa)DE-He213 Cochrane (dpeaa)DE-He213 Risk of bias (dpeaa)DE-He213 Other bias inconsistency (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pijuk, Andela aut Brázdilová, Lucie aut Georgieva, Yuliyana aut Raposo Pereira, Marco António aut Poklepovic Pericic, Tina aut Puljak, Livia (orcid)0000-0002-8467-6061 aut Enthalten in BMC medical research methodology London : BioMed Central, 2001 19(2019), 1 vom: 11. Apr. (DE-627)326643818 (DE-600)2041362-2 1471-2288 nnns volume:19 year:2019 number:1 day:11 month:04 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0718-8 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 19 2019 1 11 04
language	English
source	Enthalten in BMC medical research methodology 19(2019), 1 vom: 11. Apr. volume:19 year:2019 number:1 day:11 month:04
sourceStr	Enthalten in BMC medical research methodology 19(2019), 1 vom: 11. Apr. volume:19 year:2019 number:1 day:11 month:04
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Systematic review Cochrane Risk of bias Other bias inconsistency
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	BMC medical research methodology
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Babic, Andrija @@aut@@ Pijuk, Andela @@aut@@ Brázdilová, Lucie @@aut@@ Georgieva, Yuliyana @@aut@@ Raposo Pereira, Marco António @@aut@@ Poklepovic Pericic, Tina @@aut@@ Puljak, Livia @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2019-04-11T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	326643818
id	SPR027376591
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR027376591</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230520003655.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2019 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12874-019-0718-8</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR027376591</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12874-019-0718-8-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Babic, Andrija</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">The judgement of biases included in the category “other bias” in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: a systematic survey</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s). 2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Clinical decisions are made based on Cochrane reviews, but the implementation of results of evidence syntheses such as Cochrane reviews is problematic if the evidence is not prepared consistently. All systematic reviews should assess the risk of bias (RoB) in included studies, and in Cochrane reviews, this is done by using Cochrane RoB tool. However, the tool is not necessarily applied according to the instructions. In this study, we aimed to determine the types of bias and their corresponding judgements noted in the ‘other bias’ domain of Cochrane RoB tool. Methods We analyzed Cochrane reviews that included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and extracted data regarding ‘other bias’ from the RoB table and accompanying support for the judgment. We categorized different types of other bias. Results We analyzed 768 Cochrane reviews that included 11,369 RCTs. There were 602 (78%) Cochrane reviews that had ‘other bias’ domain in the RoB tool, and they included a total of 7811 RCTs. In the RoB table of 337 Cochrane reviews for at least one of the included trials it was indicated that no other bias was found and supporting explanations were inconsistently judged as low, unclear or high RoB. In the 524 Cochrane reviews that described various sources of other bias, there were 5762 individual types of explanations which we categorized into 31 groups. The judgments of the same supporting explanations were highly inconsistent. We found numerous other inconsistencies in reporting of sources of other bias in Cochrane reviews. Conclusion Cochrane authors mention a wide range of sources of other bias in the RoB tool and they inconsistently judge the same supporting explanations. Inconsistency in appraising risk of other bias hinders reliability and comparability of Cochrane systematic reviews. Discrepant and erroneous judgments of bias in evidence synthesis may hinder implementation of evidence in routine clinical practice and reduce confidence in otherwise trustworthy sources of information. These results can help authors of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews to gain insight into various sources of other bias that can be found in trials, and also to help them avoid mistakes that were recognized in published Cochrane reviews.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Systematic review</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Cochrane</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Risk of bias</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Other bias inconsistency</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Pijuk, Andela</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Brázdilová, Lucie</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Georgieva, Yuliyana</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Raposo Pereira, Marco António</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Poklepovic Pericic, Tina</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Puljak, Livia</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0002-8467-6061</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC medical research methodology</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">19(2019), 1 vom: 11. Apr.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)326643818</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2041362-2</subfield><subfield code="x">1471-2288</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:19</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2019</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:11</subfield><subfield code="g">month:04</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0718-8</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2031</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">19</subfield><subfield code="j">2019</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">11</subfield><subfield code="c">04</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Babic, Andrija
spellingShingle	Babic, Andrija misc Systematic review misc Cochrane misc Risk of bias misc Other bias inconsistency The judgement of biases included in the category “other bias” in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: a systematic survey
authorStr	Babic, Andrija
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)326643818
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	springer
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	1471-2288
topic_title	The judgement of biases included in the category “other bias” in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: a systematic survey Systematic review (dpeaa)DE-He213 Cochrane (dpeaa)DE-He213 Risk of bias (dpeaa)DE-He213 Other bias inconsistency (dpeaa)DE-He213
topic	misc Systematic review misc Cochrane misc Risk of bias misc Other bias inconsistency
topic_unstemmed	misc Systematic review misc Cochrane misc Risk of bias misc Other bias inconsistency
topic_browse	misc Systematic review misc Cochrane misc Risk of bias misc Other bias inconsistency
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	BMC medical research methodology
hierarchy_parent_id	326643818
hierarchy_top_title	BMC medical research methodology
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)326643818 (DE-600)2041362-2
title	The judgement of biases included in the category “other bias” in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: a systematic survey
ctrlnum	(DE-627)SPR027376591 (SPR)s12874-019-0718-8-e
title_full	The judgement of biases included in the category “other bias” in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: a systematic survey
author_sort	Babic, Andrija
journal	BMC medical research methodology
journalStr	BMC medical research methodology
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2019
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Babic, Andrija Pijuk, Andela Brázdilová, Lucie Georgieva, Yuliyana Raposo Pereira, Marco António Poklepovic Pericic, Tina Puljak, Livia
container_volume	19
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Babic, Andrija
doi_str_mv	10.1186/s12874-019-0718-8
normlink	(ORCID)0000-0002-8467-6061
normlink_prefix_str_mv	(orcid)0000-0002-8467-6061
title_sort	judgement of biases included in the category “other bias” in cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: a systematic survey
title_auth	The judgement of biases included in the category “other bias” in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: a systematic survey
abstract	Background Clinical decisions are made based on Cochrane reviews, but the implementation of results of evidence syntheses such as Cochrane reviews is problematic if the evidence is not prepared consistently. All systematic reviews should assess the risk of bias (RoB) in included studies, and in Cochrane reviews, this is done by using Cochrane RoB tool. However, the tool is not necessarily applied according to the instructions. In this study, we aimed to determine the types of bias and their corresponding judgements noted in the ‘other bias’ domain of Cochrane RoB tool. Methods We analyzed Cochrane reviews that included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and extracted data regarding ‘other bias’ from the RoB table and accompanying support for the judgment. We categorized different types of other bias. Results We analyzed 768 Cochrane reviews that included 11,369 RCTs. There were 602 (78%) Cochrane reviews that had ‘other bias’ domain in the RoB tool, and they included a total of 7811 RCTs. In the RoB table of 337 Cochrane reviews for at least one of the included trials it was indicated that no other bias was found and supporting explanations were inconsistently judged as low, unclear or high RoB. In the 524 Cochrane reviews that described various sources of other bias, there were 5762 individual types of explanations which we categorized into 31 groups. The judgments of the same supporting explanations were highly inconsistent. We found numerous other inconsistencies in reporting of sources of other bias in Cochrane reviews. Conclusion Cochrane authors mention a wide range of sources of other bias in the RoB tool and they inconsistently judge the same supporting explanations. Inconsistency in appraising risk of other bias hinders reliability and comparability of Cochrane systematic reviews. Discrepant and erroneous judgments of bias in evidence synthesis may hinder implementation of evidence in routine clinical practice and reduce confidence in otherwise trustworthy sources of information. These results can help authors of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews to gain insight into various sources of other bias that can be found in trials, and also to help them avoid mistakes that were recognized in published Cochrane reviews. © The Author(s). 2019
abstractGer	Background Clinical decisions are made based on Cochrane reviews, but the implementation of results of evidence syntheses such as Cochrane reviews is problematic if the evidence is not prepared consistently. All systematic reviews should assess the risk of bias (RoB) in included studies, and in Cochrane reviews, this is done by using Cochrane RoB tool. However, the tool is not necessarily applied according to the instructions. In this study, we aimed to determine the types of bias and their corresponding judgements noted in the ‘other bias’ domain of Cochrane RoB tool. Methods We analyzed Cochrane reviews that included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and extracted data regarding ‘other bias’ from the RoB table and accompanying support for the judgment. We categorized different types of other bias. Results We analyzed 768 Cochrane reviews that included 11,369 RCTs. There were 602 (78%) Cochrane reviews that had ‘other bias’ domain in the RoB tool, and they included a total of 7811 RCTs. In the RoB table of 337 Cochrane reviews for at least one of the included trials it was indicated that no other bias was found and supporting explanations were inconsistently judged as low, unclear or high RoB. In the 524 Cochrane reviews that described various sources of other bias, there were 5762 individual types of explanations which we categorized into 31 groups. The judgments of the same supporting explanations were highly inconsistent. We found numerous other inconsistencies in reporting of sources of other bias in Cochrane reviews. Conclusion Cochrane authors mention a wide range of sources of other bias in the RoB tool and they inconsistently judge the same supporting explanations. Inconsistency in appraising risk of other bias hinders reliability and comparability of Cochrane systematic reviews. Discrepant and erroneous judgments of bias in evidence synthesis may hinder implementation of evidence in routine clinical practice and reduce confidence in otherwise trustworthy sources of information. These results can help authors of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews to gain insight into various sources of other bias that can be found in trials, and also to help them avoid mistakes that were recognized in published Cochrane reviews. © The Author(s). 2019
abstract_unstemmed	Background Clinical decisions are made based on Cochrane reviews, but the implementation of results of evidence syntheses such as Cochrane reviews is problematic if the evidence is not prepared consistently. All systematic reviews should assess the risk of bias (RoB) in included studies, and in Cochrane reviews, this is done by using Cochrane RoB tool. However, the tool is not necessarily applied according to the instructions. In this study, we aimed to determine the types of bias and their corresponding judgements noted in the ‘other bias’ domain of Cochrane RoB tool. Methods We analyzed Cochrane reviews that included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and extracted data regarding ‘other bias’ from the RoB table and accompanying support for the judgment. We categorized different types of other bias. Results We analyzed 768 Cochrane reviews that included 11,369 RCTs. There were 602 (78%) Cochrane reviews that had ‘other bias’ domain in the RoB tool, and they included a total of 7811 RCTs. In the RoB table of 337 Cochrane reviews for at least one of the included trials it was indicated that no other bias was found and supporting explanations were inconsistently judged as low, unclear or high RoB. In the 524 Cochrane reviews that described various sources of other bias, there were 5762 individual types of explanations which we categorized into 31 groups. The judgments of the same supporting explanations were highly inconsistent. We found numerous other inconsistencies in reporting of sources of other bias in Cochrane reviews. Conclusion Cochrane authors mention a wide range of sources of other bias in the RoB tool and they inconsistently judge the same supporting explanations. Inconsistency in appraising risk of other bias hinders reliability and comparability of Cochrane systematic reviews. Discrepant and erroneous judgments of bias in evidence synthesis may hinder implementation of evidence in routine clinical practice and reduce confidence in otherwise trustworthy sources of information. These results can help authors of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews to gain insight into various sources of other bias that can be found in trials, and also to help them avoid mistakes that were recognized in published Cochrane reviews. © The Author(s). 2019
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	The judgement of biases included in the category “other bias” in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: a systematic survey
url	https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0718-8
remote_bool	true
author2	Pijuk, Andela Brázdilová, Lucie Georgieva, Yuliyana Raposo Pereira, Marco António Poklepovic Pericic, Tina Puljak, Livia
author2Str	Pijuk, Andela Brázdilová, Lucie Georgieva, Yuliyana Raposo Pereira, Marco António Poklepovic Pericic, Tina Puljak, Livia
ppnlink	326643818
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1186/s12874-019-0718-8
up_date	2024-07-04T01:35:51.848Z
_version_	1803610438343065600
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR027376591</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230520003655.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2019 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12874-019-0718-8</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR027376591</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12874-019-0718-8-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Babic, Andrija</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">The judgement of biases included in the category “other bias” in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: a systematic survey</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s). 2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Clinical decisions are made based on Cochrane reviews, but the implementation of results of evidence syntheses such as Cochrane reviews is problematic if the evidence is not prepared consistently. All systematic reviews should assess the risk of bias (RoB) in included studies, and in Cochrane reviews, this is done by using Cochrane RoB tool. However, the tool is not necessarily applied according to the instructions. In this study, we aimed to determine the types of bias and their corresponding judgements noted in the ‘other bias’ domain of Cochrane RoB tool. Methods We analyzed Cochrane reviews that included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and extracted data regarding ‘other bias’ from the RoB table and accompanying support for the judgment. We categorized different types of other bias. Results We analyzed 768 Cochrane reviews that included 11,369 RCTs. There were 602 (78%) Cochrane reviews that had ‘other bias’ domain in the RoB tool, and they included a total of 7811 RCTs. In the RoB table of 337 Cochrane reviews for at least one of the included trials it was indicated that no other bias was found and supporting explanations were inconsistently judged as low, unclear or high RoB. In the 524 Cochrane reviews that described various sources of other bias, there were 5762 individual types of explanations which we categorized into 31 groups. The judgments of the same supporting explanations were highly inconsistent. We found numerous other inconsistencies in reporting of sources of other bias in Cochrane reviews. Conclusion Cochrane authors mention a wide range of sources of other bias in the RoB tool and they inconsistently judge the same supporting explanations. Inconsistency in appraising risk of other bias hinders reliability and comparability of Cochrane systematic reviews. Discrepant and erroneous judgments of bias in evidence synthesis may hinder implementation of evidence in routine clinical practice and reduce confidence in otherwise trustworthy sources of information. These results can help authors of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews to gain insight into various sources of other bias that can be found in trials, and also to help them avoid mistakes that were recognized in published Cochrane reviews.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Systematic review</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Cochrane</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Risk of bias</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Other bias inconsistency</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Pijuk, Andela</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Brázdilová, Lucie</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Georgieva, Yuliyana</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Raposo Pereira, Marco António</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Poklepovic Pericic, Tina</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Puljak, Livia</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0002-8467-6061</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC medical research methodology</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">19(2019), 1 vom: 11. Apr.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)326643818</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2041362-2</subfield><subfield code="x">1471-2288</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:19</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2019</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:11</subfield><subfield code="g">month:04</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0718-8</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2031</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">19</subfield><subfield code="j">2019</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">11</subfield><subfield code="c">04</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.4010506

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

The judgement of biases included in the category “other bias” in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: a systematic survey

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?