The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Risk-of-bias assessment using Cochrane's revised tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) was useful but challenging and resource-intensive: observations from a systematic review
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?
One of the limitations of the RoB 2 is that it takes more time to complete each study.
“One of the limitations of the RoB2 is that it takes more time to complete each study.”
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 [8]
A systematic review of 113 studies showed an average time of 358 min per article for RoB 2 assessment.
“A systematic review of 113 studies showed an average time of 358 min per article.”
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 [8]
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
Shea, B. J., Reeves, B. C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., Moher, D., Tugwell, P., Welch, V., Kristjansson, E., et al. (2017) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.j4008 · Cited by 10,636
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
Higgins, J. P. T., Green, S., & Ben Van Den, A. (2020) · International Coaching Psychology Review · doi:10.53841/bpsicpr.2020.15.2.123 · Cited by 5,670
Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies
Higgins, J. P., & Altman, D. G. (2008) · Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions · doi:10.1002/9780470712184.ch8 · Cited by 3,396
GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias)
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Vist, G., Kunz, R., Brozek, J., Alonso-Coello, P., Montori, V., Akl, E. A., Djulbegovic, B., & Falck-Ytter, Y. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.017 · Cited by 2,798
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
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- 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
- Higgins, 2022, Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial Cochrane
- Minozzi, 2022, Adherence of systematic reviews to Cochrane RoB2 guidance was frequently poor: a meta epidemiological study, J Clin Epidemiol, 152, 47, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.003 · DOI · Paper page
- Minozzi, 2022, 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 · Paper page
- Crocker, 2023, Community-based complex interventions to sustain independence in older people, stratified by frailty: a systematic review and network meta-analysis, Health Technol Assess
- Crocker, 2021, Community-based complex interventions to sustain independence in older people, stratified by frailty: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis, BMJ Open, 11, 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045637 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Nejadghaderi, S. A., Balibegloo, M., & Rezaei, N. (2024) · Health Science Reports · doi:10.1002/hsr2.2165 · Cited by 274
Wang, Y., Keitz, S., Briel, M., Glasziou, P., Brignardello-Petersen, R., Siemieniuk, R. A. C., Zeraatkar, D., Akl, E. A., Armijo-Olivo, S., Bassler, D., et al. (2025) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj-2024-081199 · Cited by 60
Man, S. S., Su, P., Xiao, C., Yun, H., & Chan, A. H. S. (2026) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2025.2554243 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Crocker, T. F., Lam, N., Jordão, M., Brundle, C., Prescott, M., Forster, A., Ensor, J., Gladman, J., & Clegg, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023-09
- Volume
- 161
- Pages
- 39-45
- ISSN
- 0895-4356
- Cited by
- 174
- References
- 7
- Language
- en
- Licence
- Funders
- Health Technology Assessment Programme (NIHR128862)
- National Institute for Health and Care Research
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
