Article type
Abstract
Background: Evaluating bias risk in observational studies is crucial for understanding their reliability and validity. Standardized, transparent criteria for assessing bias risk promote consistency and replicability in systematic review processes.
Objectives: To compare tools for analyzing bias risk in cohort studies.
Methods: We conducted searches on Pubmed/MedLine and Embase without language or data restrictions. Retrieved articles were screened in Rayyan, with two authors independently assessing and extracting data. Cohort studies examining the effects of physical methods for treating genitourinary syndrome of menopause were included. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) and Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I). The authors report no conflicts of interest, and there was no public involvement in this study.
Results: Thirty-six studies met the eligibility criteria. Using NOS, most studies were of good quality, with three rated excellent. However, ROBINS-I identified five studies as having low bias risk (Figure 1). The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) is lauded for its simplicity, ease of use, flexibility, and adaptability, focusing on relevant aspects of studies. In contrast, the Risk of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) provides a detailed, specific approach with clear guidelines and criteria across various domains, ensuring consistent and objective application. Reviewers can flexibly interpret and apply criteria, enhancing customization to meet specific review requirements.
Conclusions: The integration of NOS and ROBINS-I creates a strong framework for assessing bias in research, which enhances the credibility and accuracy of systematic reviews. Continual improvement and use of these methodologies are essential for upholding the integrity of evidence-based decision-making in healthcare and other fields.
Objectives: To compare tools for analyzing bias risk in cohort studies.
Methods: We conducted searches on Pubmed/MedLine and Embase without language or data restrictions. Retrieved articles were screened in Rayyan, with two authors independently assessing and extracting data. Cohort studies examining the effects of physical methods for treating genitourinary syndrome of menopause were included. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) and Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I). The authors report no conflicts of interest, and there was no public involvement in this study.
Results: Thirty-six studies met the eligibility criteria. Using NOS, most studies were of good quality, with three rated excellent. However, ROBINS-I identified five studies as having low bias risk (Figure 1). The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) is lauded for its simplicity, ease of use, flexibility, and adaptability, focusing on relevant aspects of studies. In contrast, the Risk of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) provides a detailed, specific approach with clear guidelines and criteria across various domains, ensuring consistent and objective application. Reviewers can flexibly interpret and apply criteria, enhancing customization to meet specific review requirements.
Conclusions: The integration of NOS and ROBINS-I creates a strong framework for assessing bias in research, which enhances the credibility and accuracy of systematic reviews. Continual improvement and use of these methodologies are essential for upholding the integrity of evidence-based decision-making in healthcare and other fields.