The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Adherence of systematic reviews to Cochrane RoB2 guidance was frequently poor: a meta epidemiological study
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
There was a significant association between the use of RoB 2 and the improved methodological quality of the systematic reviews (p = 0.007).
“Nevertheless, there was a significant association between the use of RoB 2 and the improved methodological quality of the systematic reviews (p = 0.007).”
From The Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool 2 (RoB 2) versus the original RoB: A perspective on the pros and cons (2024) · cites this paper as [12]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., et al. (2021) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.n71 · Cited by 108,283
RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Sterne, J. A. C., Savović, J., Page, M. J., Elbers, R. G., Blencowe, N. S., Boutron, I., Cates, C. J., Cheng, H.-Y., Corbett, M. S., Eldridge, S. M., et al. (2019) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.l4898 · Cited by 34,787
ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions
Sterne, J. A., Hernán, M. A., Reeves, B. C., Savović, J., Berkman, N. D., Viswanathan, M., Henry, D., Altman, D. G., Ansari, M. T., Boutron, I., et al. (2016) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.i4919 · Cited by 20,329
Guidelines for reporting meta-epidemiological methodology research
Murad, M. H., & Wang, Z. (2017) · Evidence Based Medicine · doi:10.1136/ebmed-2017-110713 · Cited by 515 · cited 1×
“We performed this SR according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [16] and guidelines for reporting meta-epidemiological research [17].”
Minozzi, S., Cinquini, M., Gianola, S., Gonzalez-Lorenzo, M., & Banzi, R. (2020) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.06.015 · Cited by 471 · cited 1×
“Previous studies have shown that the RoB2 is generally difficult to apply and time consuming, even by experienced reviewers [24,25].”
BackgroundSelf-citationPage, M. J., Higgins, J. P. T., Clayton, G., Sterne, J. A. C., Hróbjartsson, A., & Savović, J. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0159267 · Cited by 284
Stevens, A., Shamseer, L., Weinstein, E., Yazdi, F., Turner, L., Thielman, J., Altman, D. G., Hirst, A., Hoey, J., Palepu, A., et al. (2014) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g3804 · Cited by 242 · cited 1×
“Finally, our results are in line with research showing some inertia by the peer review system to align to new guidance [28,29].”
Risk of bias assessments for selective reporting were inadequate in the majority of Cochrane reviews
Saric, F., Barcot, O., & Puljak, L. (2019) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.007 · Cited by 48
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- Guyatt, 2011, GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables, J Clin Epidemiol, 64, 383, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026 · DOI · Paper page
- Higgins, 2011, The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials, BMJ, 343, d5928, 10.1136/bmj.d5928 · DOI · Paper page
- Jørgensen, 2016, Evaluation of the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized clinical trials: overview of published comments and analysis of user practice in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, Syst Rev, 5, 80, 10.1186/s13643-016-0259-8 · DOI · Paper page
- Barcot, 2019, Risk of bias judgments for random sequence generation in Cochrane systematic reviews were frequently not in line with Cochrane Handbook, BMC Med Res Methodol, 19, 170, 10.1186/s12874-019-0804-y · DOI
- Propadalo, 2019, In Cochrane reviews, risk of bias assessments for allocation concealment were frequently not in line with Cochrane’s Handbook guidance, J Clin Epidemiol, 106, 10, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.10.002 · DOI
- Barcot, 2019, Risk of bias assessments for blinding of participants and personnel in Cochrane reviews were frequently inadequate, J Clin Epidemiol, 113, 104, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.05.012 · DOI
- Babic, 2019, Assessments of attrition bias in Cochrane systematic reviews are highly inconsistent and thus hindering trial comparability, BMC Med Res Methodol, 19, 76, 10.1186/s12874-019-0717-9 · DOI
- Babic, 2019, The judgement of biases included in the category “other bias” in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: a systematic survey, BMC Med Res Methodol, 19, 77, 10.1186/s12874-019-0718-8 · DOI · Paper page
- Puljak, 2020, Cochrane risk of bias tool was used inadequately in the majority of non-Cochrane systematic reviews, J Clin Epidemiol, 123, 114, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.03.019 · DOI
- Barcot, 2020, Assessing risk of bias judgments for blinding of outcome assessors in Cochrane reviews, J Comp Eff Res, 9, 585, 10.2217/cer-2019-0181 · DOI
- Krnic Martinic, 2019, Definition of a systematic review used in overviews of systematic reviews, meta-epidemiological studies and textbooks, BMC Med Res Methodol, 19, 203, 10.1186/s12874-019-0855-0 · DOI
- Shea, 2017, AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both, BMJ, 358, j4008, 10.1136/bmj.j4008 · DOI · Paper page
- Moja, 2005, Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study, BMJ, 330, 1053, 10.1136/bmj.38414.515938.8F · DOI
- Minozzi, 2021, Reliability of the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB2) improved with the use of implementation instruction, J Clin Epidemiol, 141, 99, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.09.021 · DOI
- Igelström, 2021, Cochrane's risk of bias tool for non-randomized studies (ROBINS-I) is frequently misapplied: a methodological systematic review, J Clin Epidemiol, 140, 22, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.08.022 · DOI
- Samaan, 2013, A systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature, J Multidiscip Healthc, 6, 169
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Nejadghaderi, S. A., Balibegloo, M., & Rezaei, N. (2024) · Health Science Reports · doi:10.1002/hsr2.2165 · Cited by 274
Huang, J., Lai, H., Zhao, W., Xia, D., Bai, C., Sun, M., Liu, J., Liu, J., Pan, B., Tian, J., et al. (2025) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/70450 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Minozzi, S., Gonzalez-Lorenzo, M., Cinquini, M., Berardinelli, D., Cagnazzo, C., Ciardullo, S., De Nardi, P., Gammone, M., Iovino, P., Lando, A., Rissone, M., Simeone, G., Stracuzzi, M., Venezia, G., Moja, L., Costantino, G., Cianciulli, A., Cinnirella, A., Grosso, F., Luceri, F., Venuti, G., Vultaggio, S., & Zambarbieri, E.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-12
- Volume
- 152
- Pages
- 47-55
- ISSN
- 0895-4356
- Cited by
- 41
- References
- 8
- Language
- en
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
