Checklists of Methodological Issues for Review Authors to Consider When Including Non-Randomized Studies in Systematic Reviews
Saved in:
| Title: | Checklists of Methodological Issues for Review Authors to Consider When Including Non-Randomized Studies in Systematic Reviews |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Wells, George A., Shea, Beverley, Higgins, Julian P. T. |
| Source: | Research Synthesis Methods. Mar 2013 4(1):63-77. |
| Availability: | Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 15 |
| Publication Date: | 2013 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Descriptors: | Health Services, Intervention, Workshops, Research Methodology, Meta Analysis, Research Problems, Check Lists, Risk, Guidelines, Evidence |
| DOI: | 10.1002/jrsm.1077 |
| ISSN: | 1759-2879 |
| Abstract: | Background: There is increasing interest from review authors about including non-randomized studies (NRS) in their systematic reviews of health care interventions. This series from the Ottawa Non-Randomized Studies Workshop consists of six papers identifying methodological issues when doing this. Aim: To format the guidance from the preceding papers on study design and bias, confounding and meta-analysis, selective reporting, and applicability/directness into checklists of issues for review authors to consider when including NRS in a systematic review. Checklists: Checklists were devised providing frameworks to describe/assess: (1) study designs based on study design features; (2) risk of residual confounding and when to consider meta-analysing data from NRS; (3) risk of selective reporting based on the Cochrane framework for detecting selective outcome reporting in trials but extended to selective reporting of analyses; and (4) directness of evidence contributed by a study to aid integration of NRS findings into summary of findings tables. Summary: The checklists described will allow review groups to operationalize the inclusion of NRS in systematic reviews in a more consistent way. The next major step is extending the existing Cochrane Risk of Bias tool so that it can assess the risk of bias to NRS included in a review. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2016 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1109010 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | Background: There is increasing interest from review authors about including non-randomized studies (NRS) in their systematic reviews of health care interventions. This series from the Ottawa Non-Randomized Studies Workshop consists of six papers identifying methodological issues when doing this. Aim: To format the guidance from the preceding papers on study design and bias, confounding and meta-analysis, selective reporting, and applicability/directness into checklists of issues for review authors to consider when including NRS in a systematic review. Checklists: Checklists were devised providing frameworks to describe/assess: (1) study designs based on study design features; (2) risk of residual confounding and when to consider meta-analysing data from NRS; (3) risk of selective reporting based on the Cochrane framework for detecting selective outcome reporting in trials but extended to selective reporting of analyses; and (4) directness of evidence contributed by a study to aid integration of NRS findings into summary of findings tables. Summary: The checklists described will allow review groups to operationalize the inclusion of NRS in systematic reviews in a more consistent way. The next major step is extending the existing Cochrane Risk of Bias tool so that it can assess the risk of bias to NRS included in a review. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1759-2879 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/jrsm.1077 |
