title: Evaluation of the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials: focus groups, online survey, proposed recommendations and their implementation.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  In 2008, the Cochrane Collaboration introduced a tool for assessing the risk of bias in clinical trials included in Cochrane reviews. The risk of bias (RoB) tool is based on narrative descriptions of evidence-based methodological features known to increase the risk of bias in trials.
  
  
  METHODS
  To assess the usability of this tool, we conducted an evaluation by means of focus groups, online surveys and a face-to-face meeting. We obtained feedback from a range of stakeholders within The Cochrane Collaboration regarding their experiences with, and perceptions of, the RoB tool and associated guidance materials. We then assessed this feedback in a face-to-face meeting of experts and stakeholders and made recommendations for improvements and further developments of the RoB tool.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The survey attracted 380 responses. Respondents reported taking an average of between 10 and 60 minutes per study to complete their RoB assessments, which 83% deemed acceptable. Most respondents (87% of authors and 95% of editorial staff) thought RoB assessments were an improvement over past approaches to trial quality assessment. Most authors liked the standardized approach (81%) and the ability to provide quotes to support judgements (74%). A third of participants disliked the increased workload and found the wording describing RoB judgements confusing. The RoB domains reported to be the most difficult to assess were incomplete outcome data and selective reporting of outcomes. Authors expressed the need for more guidance on how to incorporate RoB assessments into meta-analyses and review conclusions. Based on this evaluation, recommendations were made for improvements to the RoB tool and the associated guidance. The implementation of these recommendations is currently underway.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Overall, respondents identified positive experiences and perceptions of the RoB tool. Revisions of the tool and associated guidance made in response to this evaluation, and improved provision of training, may improve implementation.
authors.affiliation: School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. j.savovic@bristol.ac.uk.
authors.forename: Jelena
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Savović
authors.forename: Laura
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Weeks
authors.forename: Jonathan A C
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: Sterne
authors.forename: Lucy
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Turner
authors.forename: Douglas G
authors.initials: DG
authors.lastname: Altman
authors.forename: David
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Moher
authors.forename: Julian P T
authors.initials: JP
authors.lastname: Higgins
mesh_terms: D015982:Bias; D003625:Data Collection; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards*; D017144:Focus Groups; D006801:Humans; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / Q000592:standards*; D018570:Risk Assessment
references.citation: BMJ. 2012 Feb 14;344:e813
references.pmid: 22334559
references.citation: Eur J Epidemiol. 2010 Sep;25(9):603-5
references.pmid: 20652370
references.citation: BMJ. 2001 Jul 7;323(7303):42-6
references.pmid: 11440947
references.citation: JAMA. 2010 Mar 24;303(12):1180-7
references.pmid: 20332404
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 2012 Sep 18;157(6):429-38
references.pmid: 22945832
references.citation: JAMA. 1995 Feb 1;273(5):408-12
references.pmid: 7823387
references.citation: PLoS One. 2011 Feb 24;6(2):e17242
references.pmid: 21390219
references.citation: BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928
references.pmid: 22008217
references.citation: PLoS One. 2011;6(12):e28130
references.pmid: 22174772
references.citation: BMJ. 2009 Oct 19;339:b4012
references.pmid: 19841007
references.citation: BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 Apr 21;8:22
references.pmid: 18426565
references.citation: Int J Epidemiol. 2007 Aug;36(4):847-57
references.pmid: 17517809
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):529-36
references.pmid: 22007046
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Dec 12;12:MR000033
references.pmid: 23235689
references.citation: BMJ. 2008 Mar 15;336(7644):601-5
references.pmid: 18316340