Cited by 141Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesDelphi Technique in Research

Checklists of methodological issues for review authors to consider when including non‐randomized studies in systematic reviews

Wells, George A, Shea, Beverley, Higgins, Julian PT, Sterne, Jonathan, Tugwell, Peter, Reeves, Barnaby C·2013·Research Synthesis Methods

Abstract

Background: There is increasing interest from review authors about including non‐randomized studies (NRS) in their systematic reviews of health care interventions. This series from the Ottawa Non‐Randomized Studies Workshop consists of six papers identifying methodological issues when doing this. Aim: To format the guidance from the preceding papers on study design and bias, confounding and meta‐analysis, selective reporting, and applicability/directness into checklists of issues for review authors to consider when including NRS in a systematic review. Checklists: Checklists were devised providing frameworks to describe/assess: (1) study designs based on study design features; (2) risk of residual confounding and when to consider meta‐analysing data from NRS; (3) risk of selective reporting based on the Cochrane framework for detecting selective outcome reporting in trials but extended to selective reporting of analyses; and (4) directness of evidence contributed by a study to aid integration of NRS findings into summary of findings tables. Summary: The checklists described will allow review groups to operationalize the inclusion of NRS in systematic reviews in a more consistent way. The next major step is extending the existing Cochrane Risk of Bias tool so that it can assess the risk of bias to NRS included in a review. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jrsm.1077

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wells, G. A., Shea, B., Higgins, J. P., Sterne, J., Tugwell, P., & Reeves, B. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • Institute of Population and Public Health (CA)
  • MRC Biostatistics Unit (GB)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
Corresponding author
Wells, George A
Venue
Research Synthesis Methods
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-03
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
63-77
ISSN
  • 1759-2879 (ISSN-L)
  • 1759-2887
OpenAlex
W1803108444
Cited by
141
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 2
FWCI
2.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Research Synthesis Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Scottish Government
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0611-10168)
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/G007543/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
non-randomized studies, checklists, residual confounding, selective reporting, summary of findings tables, risk of bias assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review