Quality Assessment of RCTs in Cochrane Breast Cancer Review group

Baradaran , Hananeh; Beigzali, Sanaz; Farshbaf, Saeedeh; Shamshirian, Amir; Haj Ebrahimi, Sakineh

[Home ] [Archive]

International Journal of Medical Investigation

Main Menu

Home

Journal Information

Articles archive

For Authors

For Reviewers

Registration

Contact us

Site Facilities

Editorial Board

Search in website

Receive site information

Volume 6, Issue 2 (6-2017)

Int J Med Invest 2017, 6(2): 59-70

Back to browse issues page

Quality Assessment of RCTs in Cochrane Breast Cancer Review group

, Sakineh Haj Ebrahimi ^*

4Professor of Urology, Iranian Evidence-Based Medicine Center of Excellence, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran

Abstract: (7133 Views)

Introduction: High-quality systematic reviews provide dependable evidence for medical interventions. Bias in Randomized controlled trials may overvalue or undervalue the efficacy of an intervention. There are few systematic reviews which contain all eligible articles on the special issue and thus present the highest quality evidence. Since breast cancer is the most common neoplasm in females, we aim to determine the variations in the risk of bias for randomized controlled trials included in The Cochrane breast cancer review group. Methods: This study was done as a review of RCTs included in Cochrane breast cancer systematic reviews until October 2015. Overall, 47 reviews which included 587 RCTs, were studied to determine the risk of selection, performance, detection, attrition and reporting bias by The Cochrane Collaboration's “Risk of Bias” tool. Then, Microsoft Excel 2013 analyzed data for frequency analyses. Finally, it was assessed if authors have gotten a specific conclusion or not. Findings: The search identified 50 reviews that 3 of them were excluded because of no RCTs inclusion. Finally, 587 RCTs were included for analysis. This study showed that the most and the least reported bias were allocation concealment and detection bias, respectively, which was reported in 93.6% and 48.2% of RCTs. Among 47 included systematic reviews, 33 of them could get a conclusion due to an adequate amount of evidence for their included RCTs and other 14 reviews needed more studies to get a conclusion. Conclusion: According to the results, there was not any study with the only low risk of bias in all categories of bias, so it has concluded that adequate high evidence-based studies such as RCTs are missing in the field of breast cancer.

Keywords: Cochrane Breast Cancer Review Group, Randomized Controlled Trial, Risk of Bias

Full-Text [PDF 620 kb] (1943 Downloads)

Type of Study: Research | Subject: General

References

1. 1. Oomens M, Heymans M, Forouzanfar T. Risk of bias in research in oral and maxillofacial surgery. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2013;51(8):913-9. 2. Manchikanti L, Benyamin R, Helm S, Hirsch JA. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 3: systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials. Pain Physician. 2008;12(1):35-72. 3. Xiu-Xia L, Ya Z, Yao-long C, Ke-Hu Y, Zong-jiu Z. The reporting characteristics and methodological quality of Cochrane reviews about health policy research. Health Policy. 2015;119(4):503-10. 4. Niessen LW, Grijseels EW, Rutten FF. The evidence-based approach in health policy and health care delivery. Social Science & Medicine. 2000;51(6):859-69. 5. Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins JP, Caldwell DM, Reeves BC, Shea B, et al. ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2016;69:225-34. 6. Higgins J, Altman D, Sterne J. on behalf of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group and the Cochrane Bias Methods Group (editors). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version. 2008;5(0). 7. Hewitt CE, Kumaravel B, Dumville JC, Torgerson DJ, Trial attrition study g. Assessing the impact of attrition in randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(11):1264-70. 8. Laupacis A. The Cochrane Collaboration - how is it progressing? Statistics in medicine. 2002;21(19):2815-22. 9. Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, Schulz KF, Juni P, Altman DG, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2008;336(7644):601-5. 10. Ferlay J, Héry C, Autier P, Sankaranarayanan R. Global burden of breast cancer. Breast cancer epidemiology: Springer; 2010. p. 1-19. 11. Armijo-Olivo S, Ospina M, da Costa BR, Egger M, Saltaji H, Fuentes J, et al. Poor reliability between Cochrane reviewers and blinded external reviewers when applying the Cochrane risk of bias tool in physical therapy trials. PloS one. 2014;9(5):e96920. 12. Hartling L, Hamm MP, Milne A, Vandermeer B, Santaguida PL, Ansari M, et al. Testing the risk of bias tool showed low reliability between individual reviewers and across consensus assessments of reviewer pairs. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(9):973-81.

Add your comments about this article

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Baradaran H, Beigzali S, Farshbaf S, Shamshirian A, Haj Ebrahimi S. Quality Assessment of RCTs in Cochrane Breast Cancer Review group. Int J Med Invest 2017; 6 (2) :59-70
URL: http://intjmi.com/article-1-273-en.html

Rights and permissions
	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Volume 6, Issue 2 (6-2017)

Back to browse issues page

Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.05 seconds with 37 queries by YEKTAWEB 4645