Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
- Higgins J.P.T. Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration,
London, UK2011 (Available at)https://training.cochrane.org/handbookDate accessed: April 27, 2020
- The judgement of biases included in the category "other bias" in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: a systematic survey.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019; 19: 77
- Assessments of attrition bias in Cochrane systematic reviews are highly inconsistent and thus hindering trial comparability.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019; 19: 76
- Risk of bias assessments for blinding of participants and personnel in Cochrane reviews were frequently inadequate.J Clin Epidemiol. 2019; 113: 104-113
- Cochrane reviews, risk of bias assessments for allocation concealment were frequently not in line with Cochrane's Handbook guidance.J Clin Epidemiol. 2019; 106: 10-17
- Risk of bias assessments for selective reporting were inadequate in the majority of Cochrane reviews.J Clin Epidemiol. 2019; 112: 53-58
- Risk of bias judgments for random sequence generation in Cochrane systematic reviews were frequently not in line with Cochrane Handbook.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019; 19: 170
- The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.BMJ. 2011; 343: d5928
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological interventions in people with diabetes and elevated diabetes-distress.Diabet Med. 2018; 35: 1157-1172
- Adequate and complete reporting of Cochrane risk of bias tool.Pain. 2019; 160: 984
- Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.Open Med. 2009; 3: e123-e130
- Amstar 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both.BMJ. 2017; 358: j4008
- RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.BMJ. 2019; 366: l4898
Funding: The authors did not receive any extramural funding for this study. Ms. Ivana Vuka was supported by the Croatian Science Foundation grant for doctoral researchers, no. DOK-2015-10-2774.
Conflict of interest statement: Livia Puljak and Tina Poklepovic Pericic are volunteer members of Cochrane Croatia; this manuscript has analyzed Cochrane's risk of bias tool, but this study was not official project of the Cochrane. Other authors have no competing interests to declare.
Authors’ contributions: L.P., T.P.P., and O.B. contributed to study design. L.P., I.R., C.A.N., J.B., Y.C.L., A.A.S., E.T., I.F.M., M.N., T.P.P., O.B., and M.S.S contributed to data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation. L.P. contributed to writing of the first draft. L.P., I.R., C.A.N., J.B., Y.C.L., A.A.S., E.T., I.F.M., M.N., T.P.P., O.B., and M.S.S. contributed to revising first draft for important intellectual content. L.P., I.R., C.A.N., J.B., Y.C.L., A.A.S., E.T., I.F.M., M.N., T.P.P., O.B., and M.S.S. contributed to approval of the final version and agreeing to be accountable for the work.