Background An important part of the systematic review methodology is appraisal of the risk of bias in included studies. Cochrane systematic reviews are considered golden standard regarding systematic review methodology, but Cochrane’s instructions for assessing risk of attrition bias are vague, which may lead to inconsistencies in authors’ assessments. The aim of this study was to analyze consistency of judgments and support for judgments of attrition bias in Cochrane reviews of interventions published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). Methods We analyzed Cochrane reviews published from July 2015 to June 2016 in the CDSR. We extracted data on number of included trials, judgment of attrition risk of bias for each included trial (low, unclear or high) and accompanying support for the judgment (supporting explanation). We also assessed how many Cochrane reviews had different judgments for the same supporting explanations. Results In the main analysis we included 10,292 judgments and supporting explanations for attrition bias from 729 Cochrane reviews. We categorized supporting explanations for those judgments into four categories and we found that most of the supporting explanations were unclear. Numerical indicators for percent of attrition, as well as statistics related to attrition were judged very differently. One third of Cochrane review authors had more than one category of supporting explanation; some had up to four different categories. Inconsistencies were found even with the number of judgments, names of risk of bias domains and different judgments for the same supporting explanations in the same Cochrane review. Conclusion We found very high inconsistency in methods of appraising risk of attrition bias in recent Cochrane reviews. Systematic review authors need clear guidance about different categories they should assess and judgments for those explanations. Clear instructions about appraising risk of attrition bias will improve reliability of the Cochrane’s risk of bias tool, help authors in making decisions about risk of bias and help in making reliable decisions in healthcare. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-019-0717-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Background Assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in included studies is one of the key methodological aspects of systematic reviews. Cochrane systematic reviews appraise RoB of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with the Cochrane RoB tool. Detailed instructions for using the Cochrane RoB tool are provided in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (The Cochrane Handbook). The purpose of this study was to analyse whether Cochrane authors use adequate judgments about the RoB for random sequence generation of RCTs included in Cochrane reviews. Methods We extracted authors’ judgments (high, low or unclear RoB) and supports for judgments (comments accompanying judgments which explain the rationale for a judgment) for random sequence generation of included RCTs from RoB tables of Cochrane reviews using automated data scraping. We categorised all supporting comments, analysed the number and type of various supporting comments and assessed adequacy of RoB judgment for randomisation in line with recommendations from the Cochrane Handbook. Results We analysed 10,103 RCTs that were included in 704 Cochrane reviews. For 5,706 RCTs, randomisation was not described, but for the remaining RCTs, it was indicated that randomisation was performed using computer/software/internet ( N = 2,850), random number table ( N = 883), mechanical method ( N = 359) or it was incomplete/inappropriate ( N = 305). Overall, 1,220/10,103 trials (12%) did not have a RoB judgment in line with Cochrane Handbook guidance about randomisation. The highest proportion of misjudgements was found for trials with high RoB (28%), followed by those with low (20%) or unclear (3%). Therefore, one in eight judgments for the analysed domain in Cochrane reviews was not in line with Cochrane Handbook, and one in four if the judgment was "high risk". Conclusion Authors of Cochrane reviews often make judgments about the RoB related to random sequence generation that are not in line with instructions given in the Cochrane Handbook, which compromises the reliability of the systematic reviews. Our results can help authors of both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews which use Cochrane RoB tool to avoid making common mistakes when assessing RoB in included trials. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-019-0804-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) is a nonablative pain treatment that uses radiofrequency current in short high-voltage bursts, resulting in interruption of nociceptive afferent pathways. We conducted a systematic review with the aim to create a synthesis of evidence about the efficacy and safety of PRF applied to the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) for the treatment of neuropathic pain. Methods We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO through January 8, 2019, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and the clinical trial register of the World Health Organization. All study designs were eligible. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool for randomized controlled trials and the Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I). We assessed level of evidence using the Oxford tool and quality of evidence with GRADE. Results We included 28 studies with participants suffering from lumbosacral, cervical, or thoracic radicular pain, post-herpetic neuralgia, neuropathicbone pain in cancer patients, or carpal tunnel syndrome. Only five studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), while others were of nonrandomized designs, predominantly before and after comparisons. A total of 991 participants were included, with a median number (range) of 31 (1–101) participants. Only 204 participants were included in the RCTs, with a median number (range) of 38 (23–62) participants. The overall quality of evidence was low, as the majority of the included studies were rated as evidence level 4 or 5. The quality of evidence was very low. Conclusions Evidence about the efficacy and safety of PRF of the DRG for the treatment of neuropathic pain is based mainly on results from very small studies with low evidence quality. Current research results about the benefits of PRF of the DRG for the treatment of neuropathic pain should be considered preliminary and confirmed in high-quality RCTs with sufficient numbers of participants.

Abstracts of RCTs addressing pain are not often dependable information sources; half of them are not published, their reporting quality is suboptimal. When published, 30% of abstracts-full text pairs have discordant results, with 78% discordance when abstracts present preliminary results.