GRADE guidelines: 18. How ROBINS-I and other tools to assess risk of bias in nonrandomized studies should be used to rate the certainty of a body of evidence.
- Schünemann HJ Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact and McGRADE Center, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S4K1, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S4K1, Canada. Electronic address: schuneh@mcmaster.ca.
- Cuello C Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact and McGRADE Center, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S4K1, Canada.
- Akl EA Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact and McGRADE Center, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S4K1, Canada; AUB GRADE Center, Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut, PO Box 11-0236, Riad El Solh, Beirut, 1107 2020, Lebanon.
- Mustafa RA Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact and McGRADE Center, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S4K1, Canada; Department of Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, 3901 Rainbow Blvd, MS3002, Kansas City, KS, 66160, USA.
- Meerpohl JJ Cochrane Germany, Medical Center University of Freiburg, Breisacher Strasse 153, Freiburg, 79110, Germany.
- Thayer K Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Division, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.Washington, DC 20460, USA.
- Morgan RL Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact and McGRADE Center, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S4K1, Canada.
- Gartlehner G Department for Evidence-Based Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Danube University Krems, Dr Karl Dorrek Straße 30, Krems, 3500, Austria.
- Kunz R Basel Institute of Clinical Epidemiology, University Hospital Basel, Hebelstrasse 10, Basel, 4031, Switzerland.
- Katikireddi SV MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Top Floor, 200 Renfield Street, Glasgow, G2 3QB, Scotland.
- Sterne J Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
- Higgins JP Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
- Guyatt G Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact and McGRADE Center, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S4K1, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S4K1, Canada.
- 2018-02-13
Published in:
- Journal of clinical epidemiology. - 2019
Certainty of the evidence
GRADE
Nonrandomized studies
Quality of evidence
ROBINS
Risk of bias
Bias
Clinical Trials as Topic
Evidence-Based Medicine
Humans
Observational Studies as Topic
Practice Guidelines as Topic
Risk Assessment
Risk Factors
Systematic Reviews as Topic
Uncertainty
English
OBJECTIVE
To provide guidance on how systematic review authors, guideline developers, and health technology assessment practitioners should approach the use of the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool as a part of GRADE's certainty rating process.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING
The study design and setting comprised iterative discussions, testing in systematic reviews, and presentation at GRADE working group meetings with feedback from the GRADE working group.
RESULTS
We describe where to start the initial assessment of a body of evidence with the use of ROBINS-I and where one would anticipate the final rating would end up. The GRADE accounted for issues that mitigate concerns about confounding and selection bias by introducing the upgrading domains: large effects, dose-effect relations, and when plausible residual confounders or other biases increase certainty. They will need to be considered in an assessment of a body of evidence when using ROBINS-I.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of ROBINS-I in GRADE assessments may allow for a better comparison of evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies (NRSs) because they are placed on a common metric for risk of bias. Challenges remain, including appropriate presentation of evidence from RCTs and NRSs for decision-making and how to optimally integrate RCTs and NRSs in an evidence assessment.
To provide guidance on how systematic review authors, guideline developers, and health technology assessment practitioners should approach the use of the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool as a part of GRADE's certainty rating process.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING
The study design and setting comprised iterative discussions, testing in systematic reviews, and presentation at GRADE working group meetings with feedback from the GRADE working group.
RESULTS
We describe where to start the initial assessment of a body of evidence with the use of ROBINS-I and where one would anticipate the final rating would end up. The GRADE accounted for issues that mitigate concerns about confounding and selection bias by introducing the upgrading domains: large effects, dose-effect relations, and when plausible residual confounders or other biases increase certainty. They will need to be considered in an assessment of a body of evidence when using ROBINS-I.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of ROBINS-I in GRADE assessments may allow for a better comparison of evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies (NRSs) because they are placed on a common metric for risk of bias. Challenges remain, including appropriate presentation of evidence from RCTs and NRSs for decision-making and how to optimally integrate RCTs and NRSs in an evidence assessment.
- Language
-
- English
- Open access status
- green
- Identifiers
-
- DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.01.012
- PMID 29432858
- Persistent URL
- https://folia.unifr.ch/global/documents/111292
Statistics
Document views: 75
File downloads:
- Full-text: 0