I am working on a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and non randomized prospective, controlled trials and was wondering how to assess the risk of bias of the individual studies included.
You can use the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for assessing the quality of non-randomised studies in a systematic review. For more information refer to: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp
I'm struggling with the same problem at the moment. Acrobat will definitely be the gold standard for non-randomized trial reviews in the future. However, it is very time-consuming and I would suggest to look for alternative tools if you do not contribute to a Cochrane project directly.
Thanks to all of you! Since I am using the Cochrane format (although not directly involved in a Cochrane project) for my review and I have only identified 3 studies, I think the ACROBAT-tool will be the best option.
Is it okay to use both the Cochrane RoB tool (for the randomized trials) and the ACROBAT tool (for the quasi randomized ones) for the RoB assessment in the same review? Or will the ACROBAT tool also do the job for RCTs?
Barney Reeves (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/cardiovascular/people/barnaby-c-reeves/index.html) at Cochrane is an authority on the assessment of non-randomised studies, and is one of the writers of Chapter 13 of the Handbook which addresses NRS inclusion (http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_13/13_including_non_randomized_studies.htm). They've put together a handy site full of related resources you might find helpful: https://sites.google.com/site/riskofbiastool/
There's an editorial specifically about the effect of excluding quasi-RCTs which you might find a useful reference too (for your Discussion perhaps): http://editorial-unit.cochrane.org/blog/guest-blog-peter-herbison-what-should-be-done-quasi-randomised-trials