ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed

2015· article· en· 2,208 citations· W600840809 on OpenAlex· 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005

Why is this work in the frame?

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

Canadian affiliationAn author listed a Canadian institution. This is the only route the usual frame has.

Canadian funderA Canadian agency funded it. The work may carry no Canadian affiliation at all.

Machine scores (provisional)

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Opus teacher head0.981

GPT teacher head0.716

Teacher spread: 0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation status: score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To develop ROBIS, a new tool for assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews (rather than in primary studies). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We used four-stage approach to develop ROBIS: define the scope, review the evidence base, hold a face-to-face meeting, and refine the tool through piloting. RESULTS: ROBIS is currently aimed at four broad categories of reviews mainly within health care settings: interventions, diagnosis, prognosis, and etiology. The target audience of ROBIS is primarily guideline developers, authors of overviews of systematic reviews ("reviews of reviews"), and review authors who might want to assess or avoid risk of bias in their reviews. The tool is completed in three phases: (1) assess relevance (optional), (2) identify concerns with the review process, and (3) judge risk of bias. Phase 2 covers four domains through which bias may be introduced into a systematic review: study eligibility criteria; identification and selection of studies; data collection and study appraisal; and synthesis and findings. Phase 3 assesses the overall risk of bias in the interpretation of review findings and whether this considered limitations identified in any of the phase 2 domains. Signaling questions are included to help judge concerns with the review process (phase 2) and the overall risk of bias in the review (phase 3); these questions flag aspects of review design related to the potential for bias and aim to help assessors judge risk of bias in the review process, results, and conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: ROBIS is the first rigorously developed tool designed specifically to assess the risk of bias in systematic reviews.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

The record

Venue: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Topic: Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Field: Decision Sciences
Canadian institutions: Institute of Population and Public Health
Funders: Monash UniversityMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchUniversity of AlbertaJohns Hopkins University
Keywords: Systematic reviewPsychological interventionRelevance (law)Selection biasIdentification (biology)Scope (computer science)PsychologyGuidelineMedicineMEDLINEProcess (computing)Risk analysis (engineering)Applied psychologyComputer sciencePathologyNursing
Has abstract in OpenAlex: yes
API: /api/v1/works/W600840809