Selected article for: "bias high risk and high risk"

Author: Israel Junior Borges do Nascimento; Donal P O'Mathuna; Thilo Caspar von Groote; Hebatullah Mohamed Abdulazeem; Ishanka Weerasekara; Ana Marusic; Livia Puljak; Vinicius Tassoni Civile; Irena Zakarija-Grkovic; Tina Poklepovic Pericic; Alvaro Nagib Atallah; Santino Filoso; Nicola Luigi Bragazzi; Milena Soriano Marcolino
Title: Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Pandemic: An Overview of Systematic Reviews
  • Document date: 2020_4_22
  • ID: e7o4iub7_59
    Snippet: Risk of bias assessment, based on a clearly reported methodological tool, and quality of evidence appraisal, in line with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method, were reported only in one review. 16 Systematic reviews should perform a risk of bias assessment of included primary studies, but only five (27.7%) of the included reviews presented a table summarizing bias. Review authors used a varied numbe.....
    Document: Risk of bias assessment, based on a clearly reported methodological tool, and quality of evidence appraisal, in line with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method, were reported only in one review. 16 Systematic reviews should perform a risk of bias assessment of included primary studies, but only five (27.7%) of the included reviews presented a table summarizing bias. Review authors used a varied number of risk of bias tools. Of these, four reviews classified studies as being of ˝fair˝ or ˝appropriate quality˝ and one review classified studies as having a high risk of bias. One review mentioned the risk of bias assessment in the methodology but did not provide any related analysis. It is worth mentioning that the reviews used a varied amount of risk of bias tools.

    Search related documents:
    Co phrase search for related documents