Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Use of a risk of bias (ROB) tool was encouraged and advocated to reviewers writing systematic reviews (SRs). It is significant to know how this specific tool for assessing ROB has been applied in the past 2 years.
Objectives: To evaluate whether and to what extent the new ROB tool has been used in international journal papers on acupuncture.
Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Web of science from the period of their inception to March 2011. Two reviewers independently chose SRs which primarily focused on acupuncture and moxibustion. Then the data was extracted and analyzed.
Results: In total, 981 SRs/MAs were identified, of which, 144 were identified. Seventy-seven SRs/MAs of the 144 SRs were published before 2008. Most used the Cochrane Handbook or/and Jadad’s scale for risk or quality assessment. From 2009 to March 2011, 67 SRs/MAs were identified. 44.8% (30/67) applied the Cochrane Handbook as an assessment tool. Of these, 3 used both the Cochrane Handbook and the other assessment tools. The Jadad scales were used by 35.8% (24/67) and of these, 3 used both the Jadad scale and other assessment tools. 17.9% (12/67) SRs/MAs failed to use any assessment tools in their reviews. Most SRs gave information about sequence generation, allocation concealment, blindness, and incomplete outcome data, however, few reviews described selective reporting (19.4%; 13/67) or other potential sources of bias (23.9%; 16/67). Only 17.9% (12/67) of reviews reported information on all 6 domains which are involved in the ROB tool. A risk of bias graph/summary figure was provided in 1.5% (1/67) of reviews.
Conclusions: ‘Risk of bias’ tools have not used in all SRs of acupuncture in international Journals after 2009. Reporting of relevant informationwas often incompletewhen the ROB tool was used.
Objectives: To evaluate whether and to what extent the new ROB tool has been used in international journal papers on acupuncture.
Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Web of science from the period of their inception to March 2011. Two reviewers independently chose SRs which primarily focused on acupuncture and moxibustion. Then the data was extracted and analyzed.
Results: In total, 981 SRs/MAs were identified, of which, 144 were identified. Seventy-seven SRs/MAs of the 144 SRs were published before 2008. Most used the Cochrane Handbook or/and Jadad’s scale for risk or quality assessment. From 2009 to March 2011, 67 SRs/MAs were identified. 44.8% (30/67) applied the Cochrane Handbook as an assessment tool. Of these, 3 used both the Cochrane Handbook and the other assessment tools. The Jadad scales were used by 35.8% (24/67) and of these, 3 used both the Jadad scale and other assessment tools. 17.9% (12/67) SRs/MAs failed to use any assessment tools in their reviews. Most SRs gave information about sequence generation, allocation concealment, blindness, and incomplete outcome data, however, few reviews described selective reporting (19.4%; 13/67) or other potential sources of bias (23.9%; 16/67). Only 17.9% (12/67) of reviews reported information on all 6 domains which are involved in the ROB tool. A risk of bias graph/summary figure was provided in 1.5% (1/67) of reviews.
Conclusions: ‘Risk of bias’ tools have not used in all SRs of acupuncture in international Journals after 2009. Reporting of relevant informationwas often incompletewhen the ROB tool was used.