Identifying the 'incredible'! Part 2: Spot the difference-a rigorous risk of bias assessment can alter the main findings of a systematic review
- 1 July 2020
- journal article
- review article
- Published by BMJ in British Journal of Sports Medicine
- Vol. 54 (13), 801-808
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2019-101675
Abstract
The biomedical literature expands by 22 systematic reviews daily,9 with no evidence that production is waning. More systematic reviews are desirable if they identify and inform important research questions that improve patient care.10 However, production of this magnitude is problematic when systematic reviews offer ‘extensive redundancy, little value, misleading claims and/or vested interests’.11 As we outlined in part 1, bias is a systematic deviation from the truth in the results of a research study due to limitations in study design, conduct, or analysis.2 Deviations may either overestimate or underestimate a study’s true findings depending of the type and magnitude of bias. As the results of a systematic review are only as valid as the studies it includes, pooling biased results from different studies can compromise the credibility of systematic review findings when no assessment, or a poor assessment, of risk of bias is performed.3 12This publication has 48 references indexed in Scilit:
- Incorporation of assessments of risk of bias of primary studies in systematic reviews of randomised trials: a cross-sectional studyBMJ Open, 2013
- A systematic review of the effect of red blood cell transfusion on mortality: evidence from large-scale observational studies published between 2006 and 2010BMJ Open, 2013
- The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trialsBMJ, 2011
- Effect of Immunoglobulin Therapy on the Rate of Infections in Multiple Myeloma Patients Undergoing Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation and or treated with immunomodulatory agentsMediterranean Journal of Hematology and Infectious Diseases, 2010
- Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidenceThe Lancet, 2009
- Balance Training Improves Function and Postural Control in Those with Chronic Ankle InstabilityMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2008
- Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological studyBMJ, 2008
- Why Most Published Research Findings Are FalsePLoS Medicine, 2005
- Meta-regression detected associations between heterogeneous treatment effects and study-level, but not patient-level, factorsJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2004
- Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?The Lancet, 1998