Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011 Oct 18:343:d5928.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5928.

The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

Julian P T Higgins  1 , Douglas G Altman, Peter C Gøtzsche, Peter Jüni, David Moher, Andrew D Oxman, Jelena Savovic, Kenneth F Schulz, Laura Weeks, Jonathan A C Sterne; Cochrane Bias Methods Group; Cochrane Statistical Methods Group
Affiliations

The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

Julian P T Higgins et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICJME unified disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare support from the Cochrane Collaboration for the development and evaluation of the tool described; they have no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Figures

None
Fig 1 Example presentation of risk of bias assessments for studies in a Cochrane review of therapeutic monitoring of antiretroviral drugs in people with HIV
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

  • RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.
    Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, Cates CJ, Cheng HY, Corbett MS, Eldridge SM, Emberson JR, Hernán MA, Hopewell S, Hróbjartsson A, Junqueira DR, Jüni P, Kirkham JJ, Lasserson T, Li T, McAleenan A, Reeves BC, Shepperd S, Shrier I, Stewart LA, Tilling K, White IR, Whiting PF, Higgins JPT. Sterne JAC, et al. BMJ. 2019 Aug 28;366:l4898. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4898. BMJ. 2019. PMID: 31462531 No abstract available.

References

    1. Kleijnen J, Gøtzsche P, Kunz RH, Oxman AD, Chalmers I. So what’s so special about randomisation? In: Maynard A, Chalmers I, eds. Non-random reflections on health services research: on the 25th anniversary of Archie Cochrane’s Effectiveness and Efficiency. BMJ Books, 1997:93-106.
    1. Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, Schulz K, Jüni 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;336:601-5. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG, eds. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. BMJ Books, 2001.
    1. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, Walsh S. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials—an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Controlled Clin Trials 1995;12:62-73. - PubMed
    1. Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001;323:42-6. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types