Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Some Cochrane risk of bias items are not important in osteoarthritis trials: A meta-epidemiological study based on Cochrane reviews

Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

  1. Increased Risks for Random Errors are Common in Outcomes Graded as High Certainty of Evidence

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Assessing risk of bias in studies that evaluate health care interventions: recommendations in the misinformation age

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. A third perspective on the effects of general health checks may provide a less biased estimate. Author response

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Adaptive Trial Designs in Rheumatology: Report from the OMERACT Special Interest Group

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. OMERACT Development of a Core Domain Set of Outcomes for Shared Decision-making Interventions

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Core Outcome Sets Specifically for Longterm Observational Studies: OMERACT Special Interest Group Update in Rheumatoid Arthritis

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  • Julie Bolvig
  • Carsten B Juhl
  • Isabelle Boutron
  • Peter Tugwell
  • Elizabeth A T Ghogomu
  • Jordi Pardo Pardo
  • Tamara Rader
  • George A Wells
  • Alain Mayhew
  • Lara Maxwell
  • Hans Lund
  • Henning Bliddal
  • Robin Christensen
  • Editorial Board of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group
View graph of relations

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of bias-related study characteristics on treatment effects in osteoarthritis (OA) trials.

STUDY DESIGN: Based on OA trials included in Cochrane reviews the impact of study characteristics on treatment effect estimates were evaluated. Characteristics included items of the risk of bias tool (RoB), trial size, single vs multi-site, and source of funding. Effect sizes were calculated as standardized mean differences (SMDs). Meta-regression was performed to identify "relevant study-level covariates" that decreases the between-study variance (τˆ2).

RESULTS: Twenty reviews including 126 OA trials with a high degree of heterogeneity was included (τˆ2=0.1247). Among RoB domains only patient blinding had an impact on the results (reducing heterogeneity according to τˆ2 <7%). Inadequate blinding of patients yielded larger effects (SMDDifference = 0.15; 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.29, P=0.035). The most important study characteristic was trial size (heterogeneity reduced by 25%), with small trials reporting larger effects (SMDDifference = 0.29; 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.42, P<0.001).

CONCLUSION: In musculoskeletal reviews addressing pain, all the items included in the Cochrane risk of bias tool might not be equally important. OA trial results may be affected by bias constructs that are not yet fully elucidated.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
ISSN0895-4356
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 5 Dec 2017

    Research areas

  • Journal Article, Review

ID: 52352850