Testing the Risk of Bias tool showed low reliability between individual reviewers and across consensus assessments of reviewer pairs

Hartling, Lisa; Hamm, Michele P; Milne, Andrea; Vandermeer, Ben; Santaguida, Pasqualina; Ansari, Mohammed; Tsertsvadze, Alexander; Hempel, Susanne; Shekelle, Paul G; Dryden, Donna M

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.07.005

Cited by 174 publications

(166 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

158

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Established methods for assessing risk of bias in reviews have been documented (28,29). Descriptions of the planned approach to assessing risk of bias should include the constructs being assessed and a definition for each, reviewer judgment options (high, low, unclear), the number of assessors, experience of assessors (training, piloting, previous risk of bias assessment experience), as well as method(s) of assessment (independent or in duplicate) (30). Whether reviewers are going to be blinded to studies should also be reported, (31,32) as well as whether agreement between reviewers will be evaluated and, if so, how.…”

Section: Data Analysis and Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a recent review of 300 systematic reviews, few authors reported assessing possible publication bias [22], even though there is overwhelming evidence both for its existence [28] and its impact on the results of systematic reviews [29]. Even when the possibility of publication bias is assessed, there is no guarantee that systematic reviewers have assessed or interpreted it appropriately [30]. Although the absence of reporting such an assessment does not necessarily indicate that it was not done, reporting an assessment of possible publication bias is likely to be a marker of the thoroughness of the conduct of the systematic review.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It provides immediate results, with the possibility of examining multiple mucosal areas. It appears to have good Se (79.6%-94.7%), Sp (81%-95.5%), and Ac (88%-94%) in the larynx 8,29,30 for distinguishing between benign and malignant mucosal lesions. CE can examine only limited cellular architecture of the epithelium.…”

Section: ! 29mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Laryngeal preneoplastic lesions and cancer: challenging diagnosis. Qualitative literature review and meta-analysis.

Mannelli

Cecconi

Gallo

2016

Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.Background: Multi-step cancerogenesis guides laryngeal cancer onset and it includes a wide variety of pre-cancerous lesions that are macroscopically challenging to identify and distinguish from initial cancerous foci. Since the treatment of laryngeal cancer and its precursor lesions has a great impact on important laryngeal basic functions, early detection and preoperative assessment are important for a curative and function-preserving therapy. Nowadays, despite the high number of more advanced diagnostic techniques and methods, unfortunately, it is not uncommon for different clinicians to use different nomenclature or to identify different stage for the same laryngeal lesion. From these observations, it is obvious that an instrument offering the possibility to detect precancerous lesions, early cancerous lesions, and satellite foci or second primaries would be the key to improving management and outcome in laryngeal patients. Object. Different modalities of diagnostic techniques of laryngeal lesions exist. Rather than difference between benign and obvious malignant diseases, more difficult is to detect the presence of precancerous epithelial alterations. Not all tests achieve the same diagnostic accuracy, hence this meta-analysis of literature aimed to synthesize the validity of each single diagnostic technique in identifying and staging laryngeal disease. Methods: A systematic review of literature was led searching for articles mentioning the following terms including their various combinations to maximize the yield: larynx, laryngeal precancerous lesions, laryngeal cancer, white light (WL) endoscopy, stroboscopy, contact endoscopy (CE), autofluorescence (AF), ultrasound (US), narrow band imaging (NBI), computed axial tomography (CAT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), CAT/PET. Then, a quantitative analysis was carried on for paper published after 2005 onward, reporting a minumun series of 10 patients each study, declaring sensitivity and specificity of each diagnostic system. Results: The search identified 7215 publications, of which 3616 published after 2005, with a final results of a total of 214 articles stratified and included by our selection criteria. 42 out of 214 articles were selected for quantitative synthesis. 25 out of 41 studies had a quality score of ≥ 6 (good), 16 presented a score between 4 and 5 (fair). While objections can be raised about the pooling of different diagnostic procedures under the same group and the high level of heterogeneity in the meta-analyses, the inclusion of over 4400 laryngeal lesions makes the results fairly robust. Conclusions: A comprehensive overview of the most recent advances in laryngeal imaging technology combined with all of the information needed to interpret findings and successfully manage patients with voice disorders can be found herein. With these data, clinicians can riskstratify patients and select proper examination modalities in order to provide appropriate care. Moreover, study limitations, together with p...

show abstract

Section: Data Analysis and Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Laryngeal preneoplastic lesions and cancer: challenging diagnosis. Qualitative literature review and meta-analysis.

Mannelli

Cecconi

Gallo

2016

Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We decided not to rate the risk of bias (RoB) 'unclear' because recent research indicates that rating 'unclear' 'becomes the default for the RoB assessments regarding reliability' [7]. Furthermore, research has shown that there is a 'significant difference in effect sizes (.…”

Section: Responsementioning

confidence: 99%

Response to letter ‘Poor citation, coding and reporting: a review of adherence‐enhancing interventions for highly active antiretroviral therapy creates an inaccurate picture of the state of the field’

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In addition, risk judgments of biases are sometimes imperfect. Studies have shown that reviewers often report different levels of the risk of bias for the same studies 4,[6][7][8][9][10] . This can happen, for instance, if a reviewer misses "key" phrases throughout the text 10 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to avoid bias in systematic reviews of observational studies

Almeida

Goulart

2017

Rev. CEFAC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although systematic reviews have numerous advantages, they are vulnerable to biases that can mask the true results of the study and therefore should be interpreted with caution. This article aims at critically reviewing the literature about systematic reviews of observational studies, emphasizing the errors that can affect this type of study design and possible strategies to overcome these errors. This is an integrative literature review whose search was conducted in the databases States National Library of Medicine, Scientific Electronic Library Online and Google Scholar. The following descriptors were used: review, bias (epidemiology) and observational studies as the subject, including relevant books and documents which were consulted. Data collection was conducted between June and July 2016. The most known errors present in the design of systematic reviews were those related to the selection and publication. Although this type of study is subject to possible errors, preventive measures used during the planning of systematic reviews and even during and after their implementation can help ensure scientific rigor. This literature can serve as an important tool for the development and interpretation of systematic reviews of observational studies.

show abstract

Testing the Risk of Bias tool showed low reliability between individual reviewers and across consensus assessments of reviewer pairs

Cited by 174 publications

References 10 publications

Laryngeal preneoplastic lesions and cancer: challenging diagnosis. Qualitative literature review and meta-analysis.

Laryngeal preneoplastic lesions and cancer: challenging diagnosis. Qualitative literature review and meta-analysis.

Response to letter ‘Poor citation, coding and reporting: a review of adherence‐enhancing interventions for highly active antiretroviral therapy creates an inaccurate picture of the state of the field’

How to avoid bias in systematic reviews of observational studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About