Use este identificador para citar ou linkar para este item: http://repo.saocamilo-sp.br:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/2072
Registro completo de metadados
Campo DCValorIdioma
dc.contributor.authorMartimbianco, Ana Luiza Cabreraen_US
dc.contributor.authorSá, Kamilla Mayr Martinsen_US
dc.contributor.authorSantos, Giovanna Marcílioen_US
dc.contributor.authorSantos, Elaine Marcílioen_US
dc.contributor.authorPacheco, Rafael Leiteen_US
dc.contributor.authorRiera, Rachelen_US
dc.date.accessioned2024-09-19T18:29:42Z-
dc.date.available2024-09-19T18:29:42Z-
dc.date.issued2023-
dc.identifier.citationMartimbianco, Ana Luiza Cabrera, et al. “Most Cochrane systematic reviews and protocols did not adhere to the Cochrane’s risk of bias 2.0 tool”. Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira, vol. 69, no 3, março de 2023, p. 469–72. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.20221593.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1806-9282-
dc.identifier.urihttp://repo.saocamilo-sp.br:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/2072-
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the frequency of Cochrane systematic reviews and Cochrane systematic reviews protocols using (or planning to use) the risk of bias 2.0 tool to assess the risk of bias of the included randomized clinical trials. STUDY DESIGN: This is a meta-research study. METHODS: We included Cochrane systematic reviews or Cochrane systematic reviews protocols that planned to include randomized clinical trials. We assessed the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and screened for issues published after the launch of risk of bias 2.0 tool (2019-2022). Two independent investigators performed the study selection and data extraction. RESULTS: We analyzed 440 Cochrane systematic reviews and 536 Cochrane systematic reviews protocols. Overall, 4.8% of the Cochrane systematic reviews and 28.5% of the Cochrane systematic reviews protocols used or planned to use risk of bias 2.0 tool. Although low, adherence is increasing over time. In 2019, 0% of Cochrane systematic reviews used risk of bias 2.0 tool, compared to 24.1% in 2022. In Cochrane systematic reviews protocols, adherence increased from 6.9% in 2019 to 41.5% in 2022. A total of 274 (62.1%) Cochrane systematic reviews had their protocols published before 2018; only one used risk of bias 2.0 tool and reported the change of versions in the “Differences between protocol and revision” section. CONCLUSION: The Cochrane's risk of bias 2.0 tool has low adherence among Cochrane protocols and systematic reviews. Further efforts are necessary to facilitate the implementation of this new tool.-
dc.publisherAssociação Médica Brasileiraen_US
dc.relation.ispartofRevista da associação médica brasileira, v. 69, n. 3, 2023, p. 469-472en_US
dc.subjectRevisão sistemáticaen_US
dc.subjectRelatório de pesquisaen_US
dc.subjectPublicaçõesen_US
dc.subjectMétodosen_US
dc.titleMost Cochrane systematic reviews and protocols did not adhere to the Cochrane’s risk of bias 2.0 toolen_US
dc.typeArtigo de Periódicoen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1590/1806-9282.20221593-
Aparece nas coleções:Artigos de Periódicos

Arquivos associados a este item:
Não existem arquivos associados a este item.


Os itens no repositório estão protegidos por copyright, com todos os direitos reservados, salvo quando é indicado o contrário.