2016
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i4919
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions

Abstract: Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or cluste… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

15
7,998
1
71

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

3
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10,545 publications
(8,845 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
15
7,998
1
71
Order By: Relevance
“…In a formal risk of bias analysis, we used the Cochrane risk of bias tool for nonrandomized studies (ROBINS‐I)34 to assess risk of bias in primary studies. We rated the evidence for the association between alcohol consumption and incidence of hypertension based on the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system 35…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In a formal risk of bias analysis, we used the Cochrane risk of bias tool for nonrandomized studies (ROBINS‐I)34 to assess risk of bias in primary studies. We rated the evidence for the association between alcohol consumption and incidence of hypertension based on the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system 35…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Quality assessment was performed using two tools: the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) 20 and the Risk Of Bias In Non‐randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS‐I) 21. We opted to use both tools because the NOS offers a good overview of study methodology and representativeness, whereas the ROBINS‐I offers a more comprehensive assessment of bias.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The second identified study was a retrospective cohort study including 47 patients with CAT and thrombocytopenia (platelets <50 x10 9 /L) and 81 patients without thrombocytopenia 25. Among the thrombocytopenic patients, 14 received therapeutic anticoagulation with LMWH and 22 received dose‐modified LMWH (enoxaparin 40 mg daily during the period of significant thrombocytopenia).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%