Search
You can use the search box at the top to search by Author or content.
To search for a string, use speech marks: e.g. "string to search"
Displaying 461 - 480 of 598 records Index
Oral Reasons for missing evidence in rehabilitation meta-analyses: a cross-sectional meta-research study
2023 London
Lazzarini, Stella Yousif, Bargeri, Castellini, Gianola
Background:
The current best evidence is usually informed by systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The pooled treatment effect estimates of meta-analyses can be biased when RCTs are omitted from the meta-analyses because of outcome-related reasons (i.e., missing evidence…
Poster Recommendations to keep a living systematic review alive during a pandemic
2023 London
Heron, Buitrago-Garcia, Ipekci, Baumann, Imeri, Counotte, Low
Background: Living systematic reviews (LSRs) gained special attention during the COVID-19 pandemic and have addressed many prioritised research questions. However, the rapid emergence, and persistently high volume, of research evidence on COVID-19 created challenges for keeping LSRs up to date.…
Oral Reliably estimating interactions and subgroup effects in aggregate data meta-analysis
2023 London
Godolphin, White, Tierney, Fisher
Background:
A key question for meta-analysis is to reliably assess whether treatment effects vary across different participant subgroups. Traditionally, these interactions have been estimated using approaches known to induce aggregation bias, so we previously recommended a within-trial approach to…
Poster Reporting gap of randomized clinical trials registered in Western Mexico, a cross-sectional study
2023 London
Delgado-Figueroa, Alcaraz-Sanchez, Campos-Reynaga, Delgado-Figueroa, Lozada-Escoto, Verdugo-Quiñonez, Villaseñor-Alcala, Muñoz-Valle
Background: Investigative drug trials and some medical device trials in Mexico are not mandated by the General Health Law to publish their results, and there is currently no legal requirement for any type of trial, posing a challenge for future compliance and enforcement in the country.
Objectives…
Poster Reporting of Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) in Cochrane protocols and reviews
2023 London
Dwan, Moore, Minozzi, Flemyng
Background: Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) was introduced in 2019 to improve the usability and address some limitations of the original version. It is used to assess bias in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) included in systematic reviews. Minozzi et al (2022) looked at any systematic review (n=208…
Poster Reporting of systematic reviews that synthesize studies of prevalence: Assessment of 1150 reviews using the PRISMA 2009 guideline
2023 London
Buitrago-Garcia, Robles-Rodriguez , Salanti, Low
Background: Systematic reviews that synthesize data about the prevalence of conditions or risk factors form an important part of the evidence base for many research questions. The number of systematic reviews of prevalence has increased substantially. However, several studies have shown diverse…
Poster Reproducibility in Systematic Reviews used to Inform Clinical Practice Guidelines
2023 London
Bennett, Shaver, Page, Thibault, Sulis, Little, Brouwers, Tricco, Moher
Background: Published research is typically considered to be trustworthy. Research organizations use publications as one of the main ways to assess researcher performance for hiring, promotion and tenure. One assumption of trustworthy science is that an independent research team could reproduce…
Workshop Research priority setting that inform or use systematic reviews
2023 London
Kumbargere Nagraj, Nasser, Eachempati, Sharma, Uhm
Background: The Cochrane priority setting methods group has been working on developing guidelines and methods in this area and how it relates to the Cochrane Collaboration. There are a few areas that would be relevant to this conversation. These include the following:
- conducting research…
Oral Research waste caused by symptom-based eligibility: a systematic review of Cochrane reviews and their component trials
2023 London
Stocking, Watson, Wilkinson, Kirkham, Vail
Background: Systematic reviews of randomised trials are the gold standard of evidence for interventions. Therefore, it is imperative that trials are open to all relevant patients and that reviews include all appropriate trials. In gynaecology, it is common that patients with the same diagnosis…
Poster Revolutionizing Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis with Innovative Software Solutions
2023 London
Maruyama, Alves, Souza, Sugino, Pedrosa, da Silva
Background: The process of conducting a systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis involves a meticulous and exhaustive evaluation of the most dependable evidence to address a specific inquiry. This process involves a series of pivotal steps, such as identifying pertinent studies, selecting suitable…
Poster Risk Ratio vs Odds Ratio: Optimal presentation in GRADE evidence profiles
2023 London
Foroutan, Naude, McCaul, Daniel, Guyatt
Background: Evidence profiles (EPs), used for evidence-to-decision processes by guideline developers, present relative effects, baseline risk, and risk difference (RD). Because of ease of interpretation, reviewers most often report risk ratios (RR) and calculate RD with 95% CI through application…
Oral Risk factors for abstracts falsely excluded during single-reviewer screening – a methods study
2023 London
Affengruber, Emprechtinger, Persad, Gartlehner
Background:
Because of the growing need to provide evidence syntheses under time constraints, recent research has explored rapid review methods, which often employ single-reviewer literature screening. However, the single-reviewer screening process is error-prone; on average, 13% of relevant…
Poster Risk of Bias 2 tool: the user's point of view
2023 London
Glujovsky, Ciapponi
Background: A few years ago, the Risk of Bias 2 tool (RoB2) appeared to replace the old RoB tool that has been used for years. As with any new tool, some authors were really adopters whereas others preferred to do it later when it was more ‘probed’.
Objectives: We aimed to describe the workload…
Oral Risk of bias and applicability assessments for overall prognosis studies (RoB-OPS): Current development status
2023 London
Kreuzberger, Hirsch, Dorando, Moons, Riley, Wolff, Akl, Skoetz
Background:
Overall prognosis (OP) refers to the average course or future outcomes of individuals with a particular exposure or a health-related condition. OP estimates are important tools for individualizing the estimation of benefits and harms of interventions, developing clinical practice…
Oral Risk of bias and reporting quality of randomised controlled trials in paediatric pain: a cross-sectional study
2023 London
Curtin, Eichholz, Champion, Jaaniste, Ren, Tan
Background:
There are an increasing number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in paediatric pain, but the quality of these studies is unknown. It is imperative that RCTs in paediatric pain are of high quality.
Objectives:
To determine the risk of bias and reporting quality of RCTs in…
Poster Risk of bias and reporting quality of randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric surgery: a cross-sectional study
2023 London
Jiang, Wang, Tan
Background: Few interventions in paediatric surgery are supported by well-conducted randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and most clinical research in paediatric surgery consists of retrospective studies, half of which are case series. It is imperative that the few RCTs in paediatric surgery, and…
Poster Risk of bias assessment in systematic review with network meta-analysis: a meta-research study with AMSTAR-2, ROBIS and the ROB-NMA tool
2023 London
Castellini, Gianola, Bargeri, Moja, Lunny
Background. A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) and the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) are currently the most commonly used tool for systematic reviews of health care interventions. A new tool to assess the risk of bias in network meta-analysis (RoB NMA) is under…
Poster Risk of bias assessment tools used in non-Cochrane reviews of interventions: a meta-epidemiologic study
2023 London
Oltra, Burgos , Ivaldi , Escobar Liquitay, Garegnani
Background: Biases can lead to under-estimation or over-estimation of the true intervention effect. There are many tools for assessing the risk of bias for intervention studies. Cochrane developed the Risk of Bias (RoB) tool, which was updated to its second version (RoB 2) in 2019. Other available…
Poster Risk of bias of a set of primary studies across systematic reviews showed highly heterogeneous assessments: A methodological analysis within an overview
2023 London
Bracchiglione, Rodríguez-Grijalva, Requeijo, Santero, Salazar, Bonfill, Urrútia
Background: Risk of bias (RoB) assessment of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) is a critical step in the conduction of systematic reviews (SRs) because it directly impacts interpretation of findings and certainty of evidence. The Cochrane RoB tool (version 1) has been widely used historically, but…
Oral Risk of bias tools: a systematic review of usability
2023 London
Tomlinson, Rutjes, Leeflang, Davenport, Mallett, Whiting
Background:
Inappropriate design, conduct and analysis of studies can lead to biased estimates of outcomes. Therefore, risk of bias (RoB) assessment of included studies is a crucial step in systematic reviews. Several tools exist to facilitate RoB assessments. Despite their widespread use, their…