ObjectivesTo comprehensively evaluate the methodological quality and applicability of the results of systematic reviews on acupuncture treatment for primary depression.MethodsWeb of Science, EMbase, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, CBM, WanFang Data and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect systematic reviews/meta-analyses on acupuncture treatment for primary depression from inception to December 5th, 2018. Two researchers independently screened and extracted data by using tools of AMSTAR 2 to evaluate the methodological quality, using ROBIS to assess risk of bias, and using CASP-S.R to evaluate the applicability of the results.ResultsA total of 18 systematic reviews/meta-analyses were included, and all focused on acupuncture intervention, including 2 primary outcome indicators. According to AMSTAR 2 evaluation results, there were 4 high quality studies, 12 medium quality studies and 2 low quality studies; ROBIS results found 10 high bias risk studies, 7 low bias risk studies and 1 unclear; CASP-S.R showed only 4 design studies applicable to local individuals, and there were no studies on the relationship between design benefits, hazards and costs.ConclusionsThe quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses for acupuncture treatment of primary depression is moderate, however with a certain bias. Most studies may not directly benefit local individuals. All studies have no relationship with cost hazards. It is expected for further reviewers to strictly follow systematic evaluation method to improve research quality and reduce bias, while the applicability of the systematic review to individuals from different regions should be considered as well as the relationship between the benefit and cost hazard. In addition, more valid RCTs are required to provide higher quality evidence and explore correlated and comprehensive mechanism.
ObjectiveTo interpret ROBIS, a new tool to evaluate the risk of bias in systematic reviews, to promote the comprehension of it and its proper application. MethodsWe explained each item of ROBIS tool, used it to evaluate the risk of bias of a selected intervention review whose title was Cyclophosphamide for Primary Nephrotic Syndrome of Children: A Systematic Review, and judged the risk of bias in the review. ResultsThe selected systematic review as a whole was rated as “high risk of bias”, because there existed high risk of bias in domain 2 to 4, namely identification and selection of studies, data collection and study appraisal, synthesis and findings. The risk of bias in domain 1 (study eligibility criteria) was low. The relevance of identified studies and the review’s research question was appropriately considered and the reviewers avoided emphasizing results on the basis of their statistical significance. ConclusionROBIS is a new tool worthy of being recommended to evaluate risk of bias in systematic reviews. Reviewers should use ROBIS items as standards to conduct and produce high quality systematic reviews.
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.
Nonrandomized studies are an important method for evaluating the effects of exposures (including environmental, occupational, and behavioral exposures) on human health. Risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of exposures (ROBINS-E) is used to evaluate the risk of bias in natural or occupational exposure observational studies. This paper introduces the main contents of ROBINS-E 2022, including backgrounds, seven domains, signal questions and the operation process.
ObjectiveTo systematically interpret the updated risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions version 2 (ROBINS-I V2) in 2024, summarizing its key improvements, operational procedures, and clinical application value. MethodsThrough literature review and case studies, the improvements of ROBINS-I V2 were compared with the 2016 version, including the expansion of bias domains, refinement of signaling questions, and optimization of decision flowcharts. A retrospective study in stomatology was used to demonstrate the practical application of the tool. ResultsThe ROBINS-I V2 tool has restructured the hierarchy and refined the definitions of bias domains, optimized the evaluation processes across seven risk-of-bias dimensions, and minimized subjective judgment errors through standardized decision flowcharts. ConclusionROBINS-I V2 significantly improves the rigor of bias assessment in non-randomized intervention studies through its scientific design and standardized workflow. It is recommended for evidence quality grading and decision-making support in clinical research.
RoB2 (revised version 2019), an authoritative tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials, has been updated and improved based on the original version. This article elaborated and interpreted the background and main content of RoB2 (revised version 2019), as well as the operation process of the new software. Compared with the previous version of RoB2 (revised version 2018), RoB2 (revised version 2019) has the advantages of rich content, complete details, accurate questions, and simple operation, etc. Additionally, it is more user-friendly for researchers and beginners. The risk bias assessment of randomized controlled trials is more comprehensive and accurate, and it is an authoritative, trustworthy, and popular tool for evaluating the risk of bias in randomized controlled studies in medical practice.
The current issue of air pollution has pushed the development of the corresponding observational air pollution studies. The World Health Organization has developed a new risk of bias (RoB) assessment instrument and a related guideline for assessing the risk of potential bias in observational air pollution studies. This study introduced the background, methods, uses, advantages and disadvantages, precautions, and usage scenarios of the RoB instrument. It is expected to provide researchers with corresponding quality evaluation tools when writing related systematic review and meta-analysis, which will also help provide reporting standards for observational air pollution studies, thereby improving the quality of studies.
This study aims to introduce how to use the PROBAST (prediction model risk of bias assessment tool) to evaluate risk of bias and applicability of the study of diagnostic or prognostic predictive models, including the introduction of the background, the scope of application and use of the tool. This tool mainly involves the four areas of participants, predictors, outcomes and analyses. The risk of bias in the research is evaluated through the four areas, while the applicability is evaluated in the first three. PROBAST provides a standardized approach to evaluate the critical appraisal of the study of diagnostic or prognostic predictive models, which screens qualified literature for data analysis and helps to establish a scientific basis for clinical decision-making.
ObjectiveTo evaluate whether and to what extent the new risk of bias (ROB) tool has been used in Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) on acupuncture. MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review (CDSR) in issue 12, 2011. Two reviewers independently selected CSRs which primarily focused on acupuncture and moxibustion. Then the data involving in essential information, the information about ROB (sequence generation, allocation concealment, blindness, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting and other potential sources of bias) and GRADE were extracted and statistically analyzed. ResultsIn total, 41CSRs were identified, of which 19 CSRs were updated reviews. Thirty-three were published between 2009 and 2011. 60.98% reviews used the Cochrane Handbook as their ROB assessment tool. Most CSRs gave information about sequence generation, allocation concealment, blindness, and incomplete outcome data, however, half of them (54.55%, 8/69) showed selective reporting or other potential sources of bias. Conclusion"Risk of bias" tools have been used in most CSRs on acupuncture since 2009. However, the lack of evaluation items still remains.
This paper introduces the main contents of ROB-ME (Risk Of Bias due to Missing Evidence), including backgrounds, scope of the tool, signal questions and the operation process. The ROB-ME tool has the advantages of clear logic, complete details, simple operation and good applicability. The ROB-ME tool offers considerable advantages for assessing the risk of non-reporting biases and will be useful to researchers, thus being worth popularizing and applying.