The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The judgement of biases included in the category “other bias” in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: a systematic survey
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?
The study by Babic et al. on 768 Cochrane reviews showed that 87% of reviews reported 'other bias' domain and there were 5,762 types of explanations categorized into 31 groups.
“The study conducted by Babic et al. on 768 Cochrane reviews which included 11,369 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed that 87% of reviews reported “other bias” domain and there were 5,‐762 types of explanations which were categorized into 31 groups.”
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 [6]
Protocol registration and deviation from registered protocol were reported in 0.3% and 2.5% of the 'other bias' domain in RoB1, respectively.
“Protocol registration and deviation from registered protocol were reported in 0.3% and 2.5% of the “other bias” domain in the RoB1, respectively.”
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 [6]
The study by Babic et al. on 768 Cochrane reviews showed that baseline characteristics of participants (21.4%), funding (15.6%), sample size (8.1%), reporting (7.6%), and conflicts of interest (5.8%) are the five most frequent categories reported for 'other bias' domain in systematic reviews.
“The study by Babic et al. on 768 Cochrane reviews showed that baseline characteristics of participants (21.4%), funding (15.6%), sample size (8.1%), reporting (7.6%), and conflicts of interest (5.8%) are the five most frequent categories reported for “other bias” domain in systematic reviews.”
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 [6]
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
Why the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool Should not Include Funding Source as a Standard Item
Sterne, J. A. (2013) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.ed000076 · Cited by 60
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Gluud LL. Bias in clinical intervention research. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163(6):493–501. · DOI · Paper page
- Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928. · DOI · Paper page
- Roberts C, Torgerson DJ. Understanding controlled trials - baseline imbalance in randomised controlled trials. Br Med J. 1999;319(7203):185. · DOI
- Fu R, Vandermeer BW, Shamliyan TA, O'Neil ME, Yazdi F, Fox SH. AHRQ methods for effective health care: handling continuous outcomes in quantitative synthesis. Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008.
- Schulz KF. Subverting randomization in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;274(18):1456–8. · DOI
- Higgins J. Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins J, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 510 (updated March 2011): The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. [Available from https://training.cochrane.org/handbook ]. Accessed 2 Apr 2019.
- Lundh A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B, Schroll JB, Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;2:MR000033.
- Bero LA. Why the cochrane risk of bias tool should include funding source as a standard item. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;12:ED000075. · DOI
- Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med. 2010;8:18. · DOI · Paper page
- Propadalo I, Tranfic M, Vuka I, Barcot O, Poklepovic Pericic T, Puljak L. In Cochrane reviews risk of bias assessments for allocation concealment was frequently not in line with cochrane’s handbook guidance. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.10.002 In press. · DOI
- Babic A, Tokalic R, Silva Cunha JA, Novak I, Suto J, Vidak M, Miosic I, Vuka I, Poklepovic Pericic T, Puljak L. Risk of bias in cochrane systematic reviews: assessments of risk related to attrition bias are highly inconsistent. bioRxiv. 2018:366658. https://doi.org/10.1101/366658 . · DOI
- Barcot O, Boric M, Poklepovic Pericic T, Cavar M, Dosenovic S, Vuka I, Puljak L. Judgments of risk of bias associated with random sequence generation in trials included in Cochrane systematic reviews are frequently erroneous. BioRxiv. 2018:366674. https://doi.org/10.1101/366674 . · DOI
- Jordan VM, Lensen SF, Farquhar CM. There were large discrepancies in risk of bias tool judgments when a randomized controlled trial appeared in more than one systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;81:72–6. · 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
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
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Babic, A., Pijuk, A., Brázdilová, L., Georgieva, Y., Raposo Pereira, M. A., Poklepovic Pericic, T., & Puljak, L.
- ORCID
- Puljak, Livia
- Venue
- BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Published
- 2019-04-11
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 1471-2288
- PMC
- PMC6458756
- Cited by
- 48
- References
- 1
- 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
