Cited by 135Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyPharmaceutical industry and healthcare

ROB-ME: a tool for assessing risk of bias due to missing evidence in systematic reviews with meta-analysis

Open access
Page, Matthew J, Sterne, Jonathan A C, Boutron, Isabelle, Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn, Kirkham, Jamie J, Li, Tianjing, Lundh, Andreas, Mayo-Wilson, Evan +11 more·2023·BMJ

Abstract

Various methods are available to help users assess whether selective non-publication of studies or selective non-reporting of study results has occurred, but not its impact on a meta-analysis. This limitation of existing methods leaves users to decide their own approach for judging the risk of bias in a meta-analysis result. In this paper, Page and colleagues describe the ROB-ME (risk of bias due to missing evidence) tool, a structured approach for assessing the risk of bias that arises when entire studies, or particular results within studies, are missing from a meta-analysis because of the P value, magnitude, or direction of the study results. The tool is anticipated to help authors and users of systematic reviews identify meta-analyses at high risk of bias and interpret results appropriately.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj-2023-076754

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • We were not able to assess publication bias as none of the outcomes studied included more than 10 studies, which is a pre-requisite according to Cochrane's recommendations.

    “We were not able to assess publication bias as none of the outcomes studied included more than 10 studies, which is a pre-requisite according to Cochrane's recommendations.83”

    From Interventions to improve adherence to lipid-lowering drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2025) · cites this paper as [83]

    The Abstract defines publication bias, and the discussion of ROB-ME mentions funnel plots and tests for asymmetry, but neither passage states a ten-study prerequisite. A search for that threshold and for Cochrane guidance found no supporting passage in our copy. The paper also cannot establish how many studies were included in the citing authors’ outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Page, M. J., Sterne, J. A. C., Boutron, I., Hróbjartsson, A., Kirkham, J. J., Li, T., Lundh, A., Mayo-Wilson, E., McKenzie, J. E., Stewart, L. A., Sutton, A. J., Bero, L., Dunn, A. G., Dwan, K., Elbers, R. G., Kanukula, R., Meerpohl, J. J., Turner, E. H., & Higgins, J. P. T.
Affiliations
  • Monash University (AU)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (GB)
  • Inserm (FR)
  • University of Southern Denmark (DK)
  • Manchester Academic Health Science Centre (GB)
  • University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
  • Department of Epidemiology, UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
  • University of York (GB)
  • University of Leicester (GB)
  • Center for Bioethics and Humanities, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • University of Freiburg (DE)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
Corresponding author
Page, Matthew J
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2023-11-20
Volume
383
Pages
e076754
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4388824619
Cited by
134
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 63 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 4
FWCI
9.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (publishedVersion)
  • LSTM Online Archive (Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust
  • NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre
  • Australian Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Keywords
risk of bias, absence of evidence, publication bias, meta-analysis, systematic reviews, bias assessment tools
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Humans, Research Design, Bias

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