Cited by 61Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesComputational and Text Analysis Methods

Automating Risk of Bias Assessment for Clinical Trials

Open access
Marshall, Iain J, Kuiper, Joel, Wallace, Byron C·2015·IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics

Abstract

Systematic reviews, which summarize the entirety of the evidence pertaining to a specific clinical question, have become critical for evidence-based decision making in healthcare. But such reviews have become increasingly onerous to produce due to the exponentially expanding biomedical literature base. This study proposes a step toward mitigating this problem by automating risk of bias assessment in systematic reviews, in which reviewers determine whether study results may be affected by biases (e.g., poor randomization or blinding). Conducting risk of bias assessment is an important but onerous task. We thus describe a machine learning approach to automate this assessment, using the standard Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool which assesses seven common types of bias. Training such a system would typically require a large labeled corpus, which would be prohibitively expensive to collect here. Instead, we use distant supervision, using data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (a large repository of systematic reviews), to pseudoannotate a corpus of 2200 clinical trial reports in PDF format. We then develop a joint model which, using the full text of a clinical trial report as input, predicts the risks of bias while simultaneously extracting the text fragments supporting these assessments. This study represents a step toward automating or semiautomating extraction of data necessary for the synthesis of clinical trials.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/jbhi.2015.2431314

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Data extraction systems have been created that can automatically retrieve unstructured information on the trial PICO elements and risk of bias.

    “Data extraction systems have been created that can automatically retrieve unstructured information on the trial PICO elements,10–12 and risk of bias.13–16”
  • The prior work predicted whether studies' results might be at risk of bias using the first version of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.

    “In this prior work, we predicted whether studies’ results might be at risk of bias using the first version of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Marshall, I. J., Kuiper, J., & Wallace, B. C.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Venue
IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics
Published
2015-07
Volume
19
Issue
4
Pages
1406-1412
ISSN
  • 2168-2194 (ISSN-L)
  • 2168-2208
OpenAlex
W2116485318
Cited by
59
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6
FWCI
5.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
  • Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
Keywords
risk of bias assessment, clinical trials, systematic reviews, distant supervision, Cochrane risk of bias tool, clinical trial reports, text extraction, evidence synthesis
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Medical Informatics, Natural Language Processing, Bias, Risk 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