systematic literature review bias

Risk-of-bias assessment is a central component of systematic reviews but little conclusive empirical evidence exists on the validity of such assessments. In the context of such uncertainty, we present pragmatic recommendations that can be applied consistently across review topics, promote transparency and reproducibility in processes, and address methodological advances in the risk-of-bias ...

7.6.1 Introduction #section-7-6-1. When performing and presenting meta-analyses, review authors should address risk of bias in the results of included studies ( MECIR Box 7.6.a ). It is not appropriate to present analyses and interpretations while ignoring flaws identified during the assessment of risk of bias.

Outcome assessment. Publication of study outcomes. Incomplete outcome data. when complete outcome data for all participants is not available for your review. attrition - loss to follow up, withdrawals, other missing data. exclusions - some available data not included in report. can lead to attrition bias. considerations.

Research Techniques Made Simple. Systematic reviews are increasingly utilized in the medical literature to summarize available evidence on a research question. Like other studies, systematic reviews are at risk for bias from a number of sources. A systematic review should be based on a formal protocol developed and made publicly available ...

Assessment of risk of bias is regarded as an essential component of a systematic review on the effects of an intervention. The most commonly used tool for randomised trials is the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We updated the tool to respond to developments in understanding how bias arises in randomised trials, and to address user feedback on and limitations of the original tool.

Time-lag bias in trials of pediatric antidepressants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2011;50(1):63-72. 4. Stern C, Kleijnen J. Language bias in systematic reviews: you only get out what you put in. JBI Evidence Synthesis. 2020;18(9). 5.

Systematic reviews are a powerful tool to synthesize large volumes of the published literature, but are susceptible to a number of methodological biases. Here, the authors outline mitigation ...

The collection of resources for a systematic review must include all available resources, including grey literature. Potential personal bias can also be introduced by the reviewers in charge of selecting the primary studies. Key concepts regarding the eligibility criteria of studies included and excluded in the review must be clearly stated to ...

The most common included a literature review of items used in existing tools or a literature review of empirical evidence of bias (9/18; 50%), ideas generated at an expert consensus meeting (8/18; 44%) and pilot feedback on a preliminary version of the tool (7/18; 39%). ... Other systematic reviews of risk of bias tools12-17 have restricted ...

Types of literature review, methods, & resources; Protocol and registration; Search strategy; Medical Literature Databases to search; Study selection and appraisal; ... ROBIS is a tool for assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews (rather than in primary studies). The target audience of ROBIS is primarily guideline developers, and ...

A Systematic Literature Review (SLR) is a research methodology to collect, identify, and critically analyze the available research studies (e.g., ... Authors should define the inclusion and exclusion criteria before conducting the review to prevent bias, although these can be adjusted later, if necessary. The selection of primary studies will ...

Literature reviews establish the foundation of academic inquires. However, in the planning field, we lack rigorous systematic reviews. In this article, through a systematic search on the methodology of literature review, we categorize a typology of literature reviews, discuss steps in conducting a systematic literature review, and provide suggestions on how to enhance rigor in literature ...

Publication bias and outcome reporting bias are infrequently assessed in HSDR systematic reviews. This may reflect the inherent heterogeneity of HSDR evidence and different methodological approaches to synthesising the evidence, lack of awareness of such biases, limits of current tools and lack of pre-registered study protocols for assessing ...

Publication bias is a well known phenomenon in clinical literature,1 2 in which positive results have a better chance of being published, are published earlier, and are published in journals with higher impact factors. Conclusions exclusively based on published studies, therefore, can be misleading.3 Selective underreporting of research might be more widespread and more likely to have adverse ...

Although literature reviews are often less time-consuming and can be insightful or helpful, they have a higher risk of bias and are less transparent than systematic reviews. Systematic review vs. scoping review. Similar to a systematic review, a scoping review is a type of review that tries to minimize bias by using transparent and repeatable ...

Limiting study inclusion on the basis of language of publication is a common practice in systematic reviews. Neimann Rasmussen and Montgomery cite lack of time, insufficient funding, and unavailability of language resources (e.g. professional translators) as the most common reasons for not including languages other than English (LOTE) in a systematic review. 1 Thirty-eight percent (95% ...

The literature review showcases a comprehensive discussion on the critical aspects of bias, fairness, and mitigation strategies in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) systems. ... Gustafson L, Jones M, Adcock A (2022) A systematic study of bias amplification, computer vision and pattern recognition. 1(1). Available: http ...

The present study was conducted in accordance with the 2020 statement on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) . To facilitate transparency and to avoid unnecessary duplication of research, this study was registered on PROSPERO, and the number is CRD42022350902. Literature search

Systematic review registration: INPLASY platform, identifier INPLASY202380119. ... Two reviewers performed the literature search and selected the studies using a standardized approach, which refers to two authors independently conducting literature screening, followed by cross-checking the screening results. ... The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool ...

Results . After identification, 16 records out of 11 selected articles were eligible for systematic review of miRNAs and four records for PCT; the case group for miRNAs included 945 neonatal sepsis cases; contrast group included 190 respiratory tract infections or pneumonia cases, 60 systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) cases and 559 healthy neonates.

This review aimed to synthesise existing literature on the efficacy of personalised or precision nutrition (PPN) interventions, including medical nutrition therapy (MNT), in improving outcomes related to glycaemic control (HbA1c, post-prandial glucose [PPG], and fasting blood glucose), anthropometry (weight, BMI, and waist circumference [WC]), blood lipids, blood pressure (BP), and dietary ...

Background Synthesizing current evidence on interventions to improve survival outcomes in preterm infants is crucial for informing programs and policies. The objective of this study is to investigate the impact of topical emollient oil application on the weight of preterm infants. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted. To identify ...

Here is one way they could do that: identify a systematic review of a given body of research in a given field that those participating in the exercise agree employed a reliable meta-analysis plan that identified bias and/or research deficiencies, determine whether any of the published studies included in the review originated from one's lab ...

Introduction Worldwide, breast cancer is the primary cause of illness and death. Unless early detected and treated breast cancer is a life-threatening tumor. Advanced-stage presentation is greatly linked with short survival time and increased mortality rates. In Ethiopia nationally summarized evidence on the level of advanced-stage breast cancer diagnosis is scarce. Therefore, this systematic ...

Interviewer bias. Interviewer bias refers to a systematic difference between how information is solicited, recorded, ... Understanding research bias allows readers to critically and independently review the scientific literature and avoid treatments which are suboptimal or potentially harmful. A thorough understanding of bias and how it affects ...