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
Meta-Analysis
. 2014 Feb 4;9(2):e88008.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088008. eCollection 2014.

Quantifying bias in randomized controlled trials in child health: a meta-epidemiological study

Lisa Hartling  1 , Michele P Hamm  1 , Ricardo M Fernandes  2 , Donna M Dryden  1 , Ben Vandermeer  1
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Quantifying bias in randomized controlled trials in child health: a meta-epidemiological study

Lisa Hartling et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Objective: To quantify bias related to specific methodological characteristics in child-relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Design: Meta-epidemiological study.

Data sources: We identified systematic reviews containing a meta-analysis with 10-40 RCTs that were relevant to child health in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

Data extraction: Two reviewers independently assessed RCTs using items in the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and other study factors. We used meta-epidemiological methods to assess for differences in effect estimates between studies classified as high/unclear vs. low risk of bias.

Results: We included 287 RCTs from 17 meta-analyses. The proportion of studies at high/unclear risk of bias was: 79% sequence generation, 83% allocation concealment, 67% blinding of participants, 47% blinding of outcome assessment, 49% incomplete outcome data, 32% selective outcome reporting, 44% other sources of bias, 97% overall risk of bias, 56% funding, 35% baseline imbalance, 13% blocked randomization in unblinded trials, and 1% early stopping for benefit. We found no significant differences in effect estimates for studies that were high/unclear vs. low risk of bias for any of the risk of bias domains, overall risk of bias, or other study factors.

Conclusions: We found no differences in effect estimates between studies based on risk of bias. A potential explanation is the number of trials included, in particular the small number of studies with low risk of bias. Until further evidence is available, reviewers should not exclude RCTs from systematic reviews and meta-analyses based solely on risk of bias particularly in the area of child health.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: Co-author Lisa Hartling is a PLOS ONE Editorial Board member. This does not alter the authors' adherence to all the PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

References

    1. Schulz KF, Grimes DA (2002) Generation of allocation sequences in randomised trials: chance, not choice. Lancet 359: 515–519. - PubMed
    1. Sterne JA, Juni P, Schulz KF, Altman DG, Bartlett C, et al. (2002) Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in 'meta-epidemiological' research. Stat Med 21: 1513–1524. - PubMed
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S (2008) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.0 [updated February 2008]. The Cochrane Collaboration.
    1. Balk EM, Bonis PA, Moskowitz H, Schmid CH, Ioannidis JP, et al. (2002) Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 287: 2973–2982. - PubMed
    1. Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, Holenstein F, Sterne J (2003) How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess 7: 1–76. - PubMed

Publication types