ROBIS: A New Tool to Assess Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

 WUQiong-fang ¹ ^# ,  DINGHong-fan ² ^# , DENGWei ² , YANGNan ³ , WANGQi ^4,5,6 , YAOLiang ^4,5,6 , WANGXiao-qin ^4,5,6 , WEIDang ^4,5,6 ,  CHENYao-long ^4,5,6 ,  DULiang ⁷

1. Department of Anesthesiology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing 100034 China;
2. The Second Clinical Medical School, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China;
3. The First Clinical Medical School, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China;
4. Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China;
5. Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou 730000, China;
6. Chinese GRADE Center, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China;
7. Chinese Evidence-Based Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China;

Corresponding author：

CHENYao-long, Email: chenyaolong21@163.com; DULiang, Email: duliang0606@vip.sina.com

Keywords：

Systematic review; Risk of bias; ROBIS

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.20150236

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Currently there is no tool designed specifically to assess the risk of bias in the design, conduct or analysis of systematic reviews. ROBIS (Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews), which was developed lately, aims mainly to assess the risk of bias in the conduct and result interpretation of systematic reviews relating to interventions, etiology, diagnosis and prognosis, as well as the relevance of the systematic review questions and the practice questions that their users want to address. This paper aims to introduce the ROBIS tool to Chinese systematic review developers, guideline developers and other researchers to promote the comprehension of it and its application, so as to improve the quality of systematic reviews in China.

Citation： WUQiong-fang, DINGHong-fan, DENGWei, YANGNan, WANGQi, YAOLiang, WANGXiao-qin, WEIDang, CHENYao-long, DULiang. ROBIS: A New Tool to Assess Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2015, 15(12): 1454-1457. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.20150236 Copy

1.	Mulrow CD. The medical review article:state of the science. Ann Intern Med, 1987, 106(3):485-488.
2.	Cook DJ, Sackett DL, Spitzer WO. Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the Potsdam Consultation on Meta-Analysis. J Clin Epidemiol, 1995, 48(1):167-171.
3.	Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews:synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med, 1997, 126(5):376-380.
4.	Moher D, Soeken K, Sampson M, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews in pediatric complementary and alternative medicine. BMC Pediatr, 2002, 2(2):1-3.
5.	Jadad A, Moher M, Browman G, et al. Systematic reviews and meta analyses on treatment of asthma:critical evaluation. BMJ, 2000, 321(7256):537-540.
6.	Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analysis:a comparison of Cochrane paper-based journals. JAMA, 1998, 280(3):278-280.
7.	Schlosser RW, Goetze H. Effectiveness and treatment validity of interventions addressing self-injurious behavior:From narrative reviews to meta-analyses. Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities, 1992, 7:135-175.
8.	Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol, 1991, 44(11):1271-1278.
9.	Oxman AD, Guyatt GH, Singer J, Goldsmith CH, et al. Agreement among reviewers of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol, 1991, 44(1):91-98.
10.	Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2007, 7:10.
11.	Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol, 62(10):1013-1020.
12.	Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, et al. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med, 1987, 316(8):450-455.
13.	Kung J, Chiappelli F, Cajulis OO, et al. From systematic reviews to clinical recommendations for evidence-based health care:validation of revised assessment of multiple systematic reviews (R-AMSTAR) for grading of clinical relevance. Open Dent J, 2010, 4:84-91.
14.	Pieper D, Buechter RB, Li L, et al. Systematic review found AMSTAR, but not R (evised)-AMSTAR, to have good measurement properties. J Clin Epidemiol, 2014, 68(5):574-583.
15.	Pieper D, Mathes T, Eikermann M. Can AMSTAR also be applied to systematic reviews of non-randomized studies? BMC Res Notes, 2014, 7:609.
16.	Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins JPT, et al. ROBIS group, ROBIS:A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol, 2015, S0895-4356(15)00308-X.
17.	Hopp L. Risk of bias reporting in Cochrane systematic reviews. International journal of nursing practice. Int J Nurs Pract, 2015, 21(5):683-686.
18.	Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, et al. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med, 2010, 7(2):e1000217.
19.	H.A. Linstone, M. Turoff. The Delphi method:Techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley, 1975.
20.	Chandler J, Churchill R, Higgins J, et al. Methodological standards for the conduct of new Cochrane Intervention Reviews. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012.
21.	Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day:how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med, 2010, 7(9):e1000326.
22.	熊俊, 陈日新. 系统评价/Meta分析方法学质量的评价工具 AMSTAR. 中国循证医学杂志, 2011, 11(9):1084-1089.
23.	Whiting P, Savovic J, Higgins J, et al. ROBIS:Tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews Guidance on how to use ROBIS. Available at:http://www.robis-tool.info/.

1. Mulrow CD. The medical review article:state of the science. Ann Intern Med, 1987, 106(3):485-488.
2. Cook DJ, Sackett DL, Spitzer WO. Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the Potsdam Consultation on Meta-Analysis. J Clin Epidemiol, 1995, 48(1):167-171.
3. Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews:synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med, 1997, 126(5):376-380.
4. Moher D, Soeken K, Sampson M, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews in pediatric complementary and alternative medicine. BMC Pediatr, 2002, 2(2):1-3.
5. Jadad A, Moher M, Browman G, et al. Systematic reviews and meta analyses on treatment of asthma:critical evaluation. BMJ, 2000, 321(7256):537-540.
6. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analysis:a comparison of Cochrane paper-based journals. JAMA, 1998, 280(3):278-280.
7. Schlosser RW, Goetze H. Effectiveness and treatment validity of interventions addressing self-injurious behavior:From narrative reviews to meta-analyses. Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities, 1992, 7:135-175.
8. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol, 1991, 44(11):1271-1278.
9. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH, Singer J, Goldsmith CH, et al. Agreement among reviewers of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol, 1991, 44(1):91-98.
10. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2007, 7:10.
11. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol, 62(10):1013-1020.
12. Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, et al. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med, 1987, 316(8):450-455.
13. Kung J, Chiappelli F, Cajulis OO, et al. From systematic reviews to clinical recommendations for evidence-based health care:validation of revised assessment of multiple systematic reviews (R-AMSTAR) for grading of clinical relevance. Open Dent J, 2010, 4:84-91.
14. Pieper D, Buechter RB, Li L, et al. Systematic review found AMSTAR, but not R (evised)-AMSTAR, to have good measurement properties. J Clin Epidemiol, 2014, 68(5):574-583.
15. Pieper D, Mathes T, Eikermann M. Can AMSTAR also be applied to systematic reviews of non-randomized studies? BMC Res Notes, 2014, 7:609.
16. Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins JPT, et al. ROBIS group, ROBIS:A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol, 2015, S0895-4356(15)00308-X.
17. Hopp L. Risk of bias reporting in Cochrane systematic reviews. International journal of nursing practice. Int J Nurs Pract, 2015, 21(5):683-686.
18. Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, et al. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med, 2010, 7(2):e1000217.
19. H.A. Linstone, M. Turoff. The Delphi method:Techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley, 1975.
20. Chandler J, Churchill R, Higgins J, et al. Methodological standards for the conduct of new Cochrane Intervention Reviews. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012.
21. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day:how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med, 2010, 7(9):e1000326.
22. 熊俊, 陈日新. 系统评价/Meta分析方法学质量的评价工具 AMSTAR. 中国循证医学杂志, 2011, 11(9):1084-1089.
23. Whiting P, Savovic J, Higgins J, et al. ROBIS:Tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews Guidance on how to use ROBIS. Available at:http://www.robis-tool.info/.

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

ROBIS: A New Tool to Assess Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content