A5016408852- Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
- Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
- Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
- Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Birth, Development, and Health
- Venous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
- Obesity and Health Practices
- Acute Ischemic Stroke Management
- Prenatal Substance Exposure Effects
- Food Security and Health in Diverse Populations
- Child and Adolescent Health
- Long-Term Effects of COVID-19
- Health and Lifestyle Studies
- Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
- Breast Implant and Reconstruction
- Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
- Delphi Technique in Research
- Frailty in Older Adults
- Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
- Cardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
- Alcoholism and Thiamine Deficiency
- Bariatric Surgery and Outcomes
University of Bristol
2016-2025
University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust
2016-2025
University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust
2020-2025
NIHR Applied Research Collaboration West
2020-2025
National Institute for Health Research
2015-2024
National Health Service
2019-2024
University of the West of England
2023
Leeds Beckett University
2023
University of Oxford
2022
NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Greater Manchester
2018-2019
Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause effect an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk bias aims make process clearer more accurate
Non-randomised studies of the effects interventions are critical to many areas healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important understand and appraise strengths weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I ("Risk Of Bias In Studies - Interventions"), a new tool for evaluating risk bias in estimates comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) from that did not use randomisation allocate units (individuals clusters individuals) comparison groups. The will particularly...
To develop ROBIS, a new tool for assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews (rather than primary studies).We used four-stage approach to ROBIS: define scope, review evidence base, hold face-to-face meeting, and refine through piloting.ROBIS is currently aimed at four broad categories mainly within health care settings: interventions, diagnosis, prognosis, etiology. The target audience ROBIS primarily guideline developers, authors overviews ("reviews reviews"), who might want assess or...
Published evidence suggests that aspects of trial design lead to biased intervention effect estimates, but findings from different studies are inconsistent. This study combined data 7 meta-epidemiologic and removed overlaps derive a final set 234 unique meta-analyses containing 1973 trials. Outcome measures were classified as "mortality," "other objective," "or subjective," Bayesian hierarchical models used estimate associations characteristics with average bias between-trial heterogeneity....
Flaws in the design of randomized trials may bias intervention effect estimates and increase between-trial heterogeneity. Empirical evidence suggests that these problems are greatest for subjectively assessed outcomes. For Risk Bias Evidence Synthesis (ROBES) Study, we extracted risk-of-bias judgements (for sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete data) from a large collection meta-analyses published Cochrane Library (issue 4; April 2011). We categorized outcome...
In 2008, the Cochrane Collaboration introduced a tool for assessing risk of bias in clinical trials included reviews. The (RoB) is based on narrative descriptions evidence-based methodological features known to increase trials.
Abstract Objective To examine the design characteristics, risk of bias, and reporting adequacy pivotal randomised controlled trials cancer drugs approved by European Medicines Agency (EMA). Design Cross sectional analysis. Setting regulatory documents, clinical trial registry records, protocols, journal publications, supplementary appendices. Eligibility criteria Pivotal new EMA between 2014 2016. Main outcome measures Study characteristics (randomisation, comparators, endpoints); bias using...
Observational epidemiologic studies provide critical data for the evaluation of potential effects environmental, occupational and behavioural exposures on human health. Systematic reviews these play a key role in informing policy practice. should incorporate assessments risk bias results included studies.