I am doing a systematic review where evidence comes from non-randomized studies (descriptive studies, case series and case reports). The reviewer asks "In the risk of bias section the author should describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis".
As far as I know Cochrane bias tools are only for RCTs. Any tools to assess risk of bias for descriptive studies?
There is a recently-published Cochrane tool for non-randomised studies: "ROBINS-I tool (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions) is concerned with evaluating the risk of bias (RoB) in the results of non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI) that compare the health effects of two or more interventions." I think it is primarily intended for observational/epidemiological research rather than case series and case reports.
Speaking as an editor for SRs, I expect what the reviewer requires is a defensible method for distinguishing more reliable evidence from less. For case series, this may not be possible, and it might just be that you simply need to acknowledge that some of the evidence is of relatively low value in comparison to RCTs. GRADE may help with this.
https://sites.google.com/site/riskofbiastool/home
Thanks Paul, the review is about clinical characteristics of dengue in renal transplanted patients, which is pretty rare and the total number of cases is ~150. The comparison is done with the non-transplant dengue population, where data is already available. Any specific things that I should look in risk of bias analysis?
I'm afraid at this point I have to hand it over to you - the ROBINS-I tool will guide you through the questions you need to ask in order to identify risks of bias in the study. Without a detailed understanding of the study methods, I could not even begin to anticipate what those might be. Have fun!
Below are a couple of tools /frameworks that may be useful for assessing risk of potential bias in conducting/reviewing case studies and qualitative reviews - the greatest risk is when there is a single investigator, lack of any blinding in evaluation, lack of clarity regarding methods of triangulation of data to inform accuracy of data representation, and its interpretation.
http://betterevaluation.org/evaluation-options/triangulation
http://www.casp-uk.net/#!casp-tools-checklists/c18f8
http://www.casp-uk.net/#!casp-tools-checklists/c18f8
http://betterevaluation.org/evaluation-options/triangulation
Please go through the article (link), ''the methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review'' which listed all current evaluation scales required for Systematic Reviews.
Also have a look on Supplementary Appendix of the article.
Good Luck ...
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12141/epdf
I am in same situation...which one did u use
Any new ones to assess bias for case report
Other valid option is create you own scale for the specific field you are assessing. I'm not an expert in the field you are studying. For example in this study they created their own scale: Lagravere MO, Major PW, Flores-Mir C. Long-term skeletal changes with rapid maxillary expansion: a systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2005 Nov;75(6):1046–52.
please inform if there is any way to analyze risk of bias in a systematic review that only has case reports
thanks
JBI has critical appraisal tools for both case reports and case series. That said, these checklists are primarily base on completeness of reporting.
https://joannabriggs.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/JBI_Critical_Appraisal-Checklist_for_Case_Reports2017_0.pdf
https://joannabriggs.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/JBI_Critical_Appraisal-Checklist_for_Case_Series2017_0.pdf
Additionally, familiarize with the CARE reporting standards. Likewise, a nice checklist, but based on completeness of reporting -- however, all of these can be appropriated to critically appraise a case report/series. https://www.care-statement.org/
Lasty, see Murad et al. 2018: Article Methodological quality and synthesis of case series and case reports
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Microbiology
- Assays