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
. 2025 Mar 1;23(3):441-453.
doi: 10.11124/JBIES-24-00103. Epub 2024 Aug 22.

The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for cohort studies

Affiliations

The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for cohort studies

Timothy H Barker et al. JBI Evid Synth. .

Abstract

Cohort studies are a robust analytical observational study design that explore the difference in outcomes between two cohorts, differentiated by their exposure status. Despite being observational in nature, they are often included in systematic reviews of effectiveness, particularly when randomized controlled trials are limited or not feasible. Like all studies included in a systematic review, cohort studies must undergo a critical appraisal process to assess the extent to which a study has considered potential bias in its design, conduct, or analysis. Critical appraisal tools facilitate this evaluation. This paper introduces the revised critical appraisal tool for cohort studies, completed by the JBI Effectiveness Methodology Group, who are currently revising the suite of JBI critical appraisal tools for quantitative study designs. The revised tool responds to updates in methodological guidance from the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group and reporting guidance from PRISMA 2020, providing a robust framework for evaluating risk of bias in a cohort study. Transparent and rigorous assessment using this tool will assist reviewers in understanding the validity and relevance of the results and conclusions drawn from a systematic review that includes cohort studies. This may contribute to better evidence-based decision-making in health care. This paper discusses the key changes made to the tool, outlines justifications for these changes, and provides practical guidance on how this tool should be interpreted and applied by systematic reviewers.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

EA, JCS, and NH are paid employees of JBI, The University of Adelaide. THB, EA, JCS, and ZM are members of the JBI Scientific Committee. THB, EA, JCS, JLB, KS, SH, MK, and ZM are members of the JBI Effectiveness Methodology Group. EA is editor in chief; JLB is a senior associate editor; and THB, MK, and SM are associate editors of JBI Evidence Synthesis . None of the authors were involved in the editorial processing of the manuscript. The other authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

    1. Munn Z, Barker TH, Moola S, Tufanaru C, Stern C, McArthur A, et al. Methodological quality of case series studies: an introduction to the JBI critical appraisal tool. JBI Evid Synth 2020;18(10):2127–2133.
    1. Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis [internet]. JBI; 2020 [cited 2024 Mar 3]. https://synthesismanual.jbi.global .
    1. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009;339:b2700.
    1. Munn Z, Stern C, Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Jordan Z. What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Med Res Methodol 2018;18(1):5.
    1. Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. John Wiley and Sons; 2019.

LinkOut - more resources