RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
BMJPublished 28 August 2019Open access
Jonathan A C Sterne, Jelena Savović, Matthew J. Page, Roy G. Elbers, Natalie Blencowe, Isabelle Boutron
Citations30,746
SJR quartileQ1
SJR score2.98
SNIP9.45
Generate an AI Snapshot to get a quick, structured summary of this paper.
Study Snapshot
ObjectiveWill appear once the snapshot is generated
MethodsWill appear once the snapshot is generated
PopulationWill appear once the snapshot is generated
Sample sizeWill appear once the snapshot is generated
OutcomesWill appear once the snapshot is generated
ResultsWill appear once the snapshot is generated
LimitationsWill appear once the snapshot is generated
A concise AI-generated summary of the paper will appear here once you click Generate AI Snapshot.
TL;DR
The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool has been updated to respond to developments in understanding how bias arises in randomised trials, and to address user feedback on and limitations of the original tool.
Abstract
Assessment of risk of bias is regarded as an essential component of a systematic review on the effects of an intervention. The most commonly used tool for randomised trials is the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We updated the tool to respond to developments in understanding how bias arises in randomised trials, and to address user feedback on and limitations of the original tool.
Keywords
Social SciencesDecision SciencesEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
BMJThe Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
34,210 Citations2011Julian P. T. Higgins, Doug Altman +10 more
The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate.
BMJGRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
22,066 Citations2008Gordon Guyatt, Andrew D Oxman +5 more
The advantages of the GRADE system are explored, which is increasingly being adopted by organisations worldwide and which is often praised for its high level of consistency.
BMJROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions
19,002 Citations2016Jonathan A C Sterne, Miguel A. Hernán +33 more
Risk of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions is developed, a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units or clusters of individuals to comparison groups.
Annals of Internal MedicineQUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies
13,994 Citations2011Penny Whiting, Anne W.S. Rutjes +8 more
The QUADAS-2 tool will allow for more transparent rating of bias and applicability of primary diagnostic accuracy studies and is applied in 4 phases.
Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyGRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables
10,460 Citations2011Gordon Guyatt, Andrew D Oxman +8 more
The GRADE process begins with asking an explicit question, including specification of all important outcomes, and provides explicit criteria for rating the quality of evidence that include study design, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and magnitude of effect.
Cochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsIndustry sponsorship and research outcome
1,553 Citations2017Andreas Lundh, Joel Lexchin +3 more
The analyses suggest the existence of an industry bias that cannot be explained by standard 'Risk of bias' assessments.
BMJPost-randomisation exclusions: the intention to treat principle and excluding patients from analysis
694 Citations2002Dean Fergusson, Shawn D Aaron +2 more
The authors consider the circumstances when it may be possible to exclude patients from the analysis of data in clinical trials, even in an intention to treat trial.
New England Journal of MedicinePer-Protocol Analyses of Pragmatic Trials
609 Citations2017Miguel A. Hernán, James M. Robins
Issues that may arise from per-protocol and intention-to-treat analyses ofPragmatic trials are addressed, alternative analytic approaches are outlined, and guidance on how to choose among them is provided.
Clinical TrialsBeyond the intention-to-treat in comparative effectiveness research
527 Citations2011Miguel A. Hernán, Sonia Hernández–Dı́az
It is recommended that all randomized clinical trials with substantial lack of adherence or loss to follow-up are analyzed using different methods, including an intention-to-treat analysis to estimate the effect of assigned treatment and ‘as treated’ and ’per protocol’ analyses to estimateThe effect of treatment after appropriate adjustment via inverse probability weighting or g-estimation.
Systematic ReviewsEvaluation of the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized clinical trials: overview of published comments and analysis of user practice in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews
371 Citations2016Lars Jørgensen, Asger Sand Paludan‐Müller +6 more
The Cochrane tool has become the standard approach to assess risk of bias in randomized clinical trials but is frequently implemented in a non-recommended way and may be further improved by a revised structure and more focused guidance.
Systematic ReviewsEvaluation of the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials: focus groups, online survey, proposed recommendations and their implementation
340 Citations2014Jelena Savović, Laura Weeks +5 more
Recommendations were made for improvements to the RoB tool and associated guidance and the implementation of these recommendations is currently underway.
PLoS ONEEmpirical Evidence of Study Design Biases in Randomized Trials: Systematic Review of Meta-Epidemiological Studies
280 Citations2016Matthew J. Page, Julian P. T. Higgins +4 more
The available evidence suggests that intervention effect estimates may be exaggerated in trials with inadequate/unclear (versus adequate) sequence generation and allocation concealment, and the average bias appears to be greatest in trials of subjective outcomes.
EpidemiologyBiases in Randomized Trials
267 Citations2016Mohammad Alì Mansournia, Julian P. T. Higgins +2 more
This work uses causal diagrams to represent the structure of biases, as described by Cochrane for randomized trials, and provides a translation to the usual epidemiologic terms of confounding, selection bias, and measurement bias.
BMJEvolution of poor reporting and inadequate methods over time in 20 920 randomised controlled trials included in Cochrane reviews: research on research study
170 Citations2017Agnès Dechartres, Ludovic Trinquart +7 more
Poor reporting and inadequate methods in randomised controlled trials have decreased over time, especially for sequence generation and allocation concealment, but more could be done, especially in lower impact factor journals.
Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyTesting the Risk of Bias tool showed low reliability between individual reviewers and across consensus assessments of reviewer pairs
165 Citations2012Lisa Hartling, Michele P Hamm +8 more
Low agreement in the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool between individual raters and across consensus agreements of pairs of reviewers suggests the need for detailed guidance in assessing the risk of bias.
Journal of Epidemiology & Community HealthHow do systematic reviews incorporate risk of bias assessments into the synthesis of evidence? A methodological study
127 Citations2014Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi, Matt Egan +1 more
The conclusions of the SRs, published in major journals, are frequently uninformed by the critical appraisal process, even when conducted, which may be particularly problematic for SRs of public health topics that often draw on diverse study designs.
BMJImpact of single centre status on estimates of intervention effects in trials with continuous outcomes: meta-epidemiological study
125 Citations2012Aïda Bafeta, Agnès Dechartres +4 more
On average, single centre clinical trials with continuous outcomes showed slightly larger intervention effects than did multicentre trials, with low heterogeneity across individual meta-analyses.
BMJ OpenIncorporation of assessments of risk of bias of primary studies in systematic reviews of randomised trials: a cross-sectional study
64 Citations2013Sally Hopewell, Isabelle Boutron +2 more
C Cochrane reviews were more likely than non-Cochrane reviews to report how risk of bias assessments of primary studies were carried out; however, both frequently failed to take such assessments into account in the statistical analysis and conclusions of the systematic review.
Systematic ReviewsRethinking the assessment of risk of bias due to selective reporting: a cross-sectional study
60 Citations2016Matthew J. Page, Julian P. T. Higgins
An audit of user practice in Cochrane reviews suggests that the assessment of selective reporting in the current risk of bias tool does not work well and that new tools that will make it easier for reviewers to convey this information are being developed.
Clinical TrialsAdherence adjustment in the Coronary Drug Project: A call for better per-protocol effect estimates in randomized trials
56 Citations2016Eleanor J. Murray, Miguel A. Hernán
Valid estimation of per-protocol effects may be possible in randomized clinical trials when analysts use appropriate methods to adjust for post-randomization variables.
AIDSThe per-protocol effect of immediate versus deferred antiretroviral therapy initiation
27 Citations2016Sara Lodi, Shweta Sharma +11 more
The ITT effect estimate may underestimate the benefit of immediate ART initiation by 23%.