Oliver

Assessment ID: 0a6ecf6a-8e7c-4a27-b30e-a8f3dc20a6de

Assessment Metadata

Phase 1: Assessing relevance (Optional)

ROBIS is designed to assess the risk of bias in reviews with questions relating to interventions, aetiology, diagnosis and prognosis.

State your overview/guideline question (target question) and the question being addressed in the review being assessed:

Intervention reviews:

Category	Target question (e.g. overview or guideline)	Review being assessed
Patients/Population(s):
Intervention(s):
Comparator(s):
Outcome(s):

For aetiology reviews:

Category	Target question (e.g. overview or guideline)	Review being assessed
Patients/Population(s):
Exposure(s) and comparator(s):
Outcome(s):

For DTA reviews:

Category	Target question (e.g. overview or guideline)	Review being assessed
Patients):
Index test(s):
Reference standard:
Target condition:

For prognostic reviews:

Category	Target question (e.g. overview or guideline)	Review being assessed
Patients:
Outcome to be predicted:
Intended use of model:
Intended moment in time:

Does the question addressed by the review match the target question?

Phase 2: Identifying concerns with the review process

Y=YES, PY=PROBABLY YES, PN=PROBABLY NO, N=NO, NI=NO INFORMATION

DOMAIN 1: STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Describe the study eligibility criteria, any restrictions on eligibility and whether there was evidence that objectives and eligibility criteria were pre-specified:

1.1 Did the review adhere to pre-defined objectives and eligibility criteria?

Notes for this question (optional)

1.2 Were the eligibility criteria appropriate for the review question?

Notes for this question (optional)

1.3 Were eligibility criteria unambiguous?

Notes for this question (optional)

1.4 Were any restrictions in eligibility criteria based on study characteristics appropriate (e.g. date, sample size, study quality, outcomes measured)?

Notes for this question (optional)

1.5 Were any restrictions in eligibility criteria based on sources of information appropriate (e.g. publication status or format, language, availability of data)?

Notes for this question (optional)

Concerns regarding specification of study eligibility criteria

Rationale for concern:

DOMAIN 2: IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION OF STUDIES

Describe methods of study identification and selection (e.g. number of reviewers involved):

2.1 Did the search include an appropriate range of databases/electronic sources for published and unpublished reports?

Notes for this question (optional)

2.2 Were methods additional to database searching used to identify relevant reports?

Notes for this question (optional)

2.3 Were the terms and structure of the search strategy likely to retrieve as many eligible studies as possible?

Notes for this question (optional)

2.4 Were restrictions based on date, publication format, or language appropriate?

Notes for this question (optional)

2.5 Were efforts made to minimise error in selection of studies?

Notes for this question (optional)

Concerns regarding methods used to identify and/or select studies

Rationale for concern:

DOMAIN 3: DATA COLLECTION AND STUDY APPRAISAL

Describe methods of data collection, what data were extracted from studies or collected through other means, how risk of bias was assessed (e.g. number of reviewers involved) and the tool used to assess risk of bias:

3.1 Were efforts made to minimise error in data collection?

Notes for this question (optional)

3.2 Were sufficient study characteristics available for both review authors and readers to be able to interpret the results?

Notes for this question (optional)

3.3 Were all relevant study results collected for use in the synthesis?

Notes for this question (optional)

3.4 Was risk of bias (or methodological quality) formally assessed using appropriate criteria?

Notes for this question (optional)

3.5 Were efforts made to minimise error in risk of bias assessment?

Notes for this question (optional)

Concerns regarding methods used to collect data and appraise studies

Rationale for concern:

DOMAIN 4: SYNTHESIS AND FINDINGS

Describe synthesis methods:

4.1 Did the synthesis include all studies that it should?

Notes for this question (optional)

4.2 Were all pre-defined analyses reported or departures explained?

Notes for this question (optional)

4.3 Was the synthesis appropriate given the nature and similarity in the research questions, study designs and outcomes across included studies?

Notes for this question (optional)

4.4 Was between-study variation (heterogeneity) minimal or addressed in the synthesis?

Notes for this question (optional)

4.5 Were the findings robust, e.g. as demonstrated through funnel plot or sensitivity analyses?

Notes for this question (optional)

4.6 Were biases in primary studies minimal or addressed in the synthesis?

Notes for this question (optional)

Concerns regarding the synthesis and findings

Rationale for concern:

Phase 3: Judging risk of bias

Summarize the concerns identified during the Phase 2 assessment:

Domain	Concern	Rationale for concern
1. Concerns regarding specification of study eligibility criteria	Low	fdghdfgh
2. Concerns regarding methods used to identify and/or select studies	Low	rtea
3. Concerns regarding methods used to collect data and appraise studies	Low	dgh
4. Concerns regarding the synthesis and findings	Low	fdgh

RISK OF BIAS IN THE REVIEW

Describe whether conclusions were supported by the evidence:

A. Did the interpretation of findings address all of the concerns identified in Domains 1 to 4?

Notes for this question (optional)

B. Was the relevance of identified studies to the review's research question appropriately considered?

Notes for this question (optional)

C. Did the reviewers avoid emphasizing results on the basis of their statistical significance?

Notes for this question (optional)

Risk of bias in the review

Rationale for risk:

Export

JSON export | CSV export | Print-friendly export

Oliver

Assessment Metadata

Phase 1: Assessing relevance (Optional)

Phase 2: Identifying concerns with the review process

DOMAIN 1: STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

DOMAIN 2: IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION OF STUDIES

DOMAIN 3: DATA COLLECTION AND STUDY APPRAISAL

DOMAIN 4: SYNTHESIS AND FINDINGS

Phase 3: Judging risk of bias

RISK OF BIAS IN THE REVIEW

Export

Danger zone