Incorporation of risk of bias in the interpretation of review findings
Did the review consider the overall risk of bias across the body of evidence in the interpretation of findings? | |
| Yes, overall high risk of bias is described as a limitation | 11 (7.3%) |
| Yes, overall low risk of bias is used to support findings | 14 (9.3%) |
| No | 125 (83.3%) |
| Did the review consider bias due to the selection of participants in the interpretation of findings? | |
| Yes, potential for selection bias is acknowledged as a limitation | 14 (9.3%) |
| Yes, selection bias is described as unlikely | 10 (6.7%) |
| No | 126 (84.0%) |
| Did the review consider bias due to confounding in the interpretation of findings? | |
| Yes, potential for confounding is acknowledged as a limitation | 77 (51.3%) |
| Yes, confounding is described as unlikely | 2 (1.3%) |
| No | 71 (47.3%) |
| Did the review consider bias due to the misclassification of the exposure in the interpretation of findings? | |
| Yes, potential for bias due to misclassification of the exposure is acknowledged as a limitation | 85 (56.7%) |
| Yes, bias due to misclassification of the exposure is described as unlikely | 6 (4.0%) |
| No | 59 (39.3%) |
| Did the review consider bias due to departures from the intended exposure in the interpretation of findings? | |
| Yes, potential for bias due to departures from the intended exposure is acknowledged as a limitation | 23 (15.3%) |
| Yes, bias due to departures from the intended exposure is described as unlikely | 0 (0%) |
| No | 127 (84.7%) |
| Did the review consider bias due to missing outcome data in the interpretation of findings? | |
| Yes, potential for bias due to missing outcome data is acknowledged as a limitation | 2 (1.3%) |
| Yes, bias due to missing outcome data is described as unlikely | 0 (0.0%) |
| No | 148 (98.6%) |
| Did the review consider bias in the measurement of the outcome in the interpretation of findings? | |
| Yes, potential for bias in the measurement of the outcome is acknowledged as a limitation | 23 (15.3%) |
| Yes, bias in the measurement of the outcome is described as unlikely | 4 (2.7%) |
| No | 123 (82.0%) |
| Did the review consider bias due to selective reporting in the interpretation of findings? | |
| Yes, potential for selective reporting bias is acknowledged as a limitation | 1 (0.6%) |
| Yes, selective reporting bias is described as unlikely | 0 (0.0%) |
| No | 149 (99.3%) |
| Did the review hypothesise about the likely direction of bias? | |
| Yes, the authors hypothesise that effects for studies at high risk of bias are likely to have been biased away from the null | 6 (4.0%) |
| Yes, the authors hypothesise that effects for studies at high risk of bias are likely to have been biased towards the null | 14 (9.3%) |
| No | 130 (86.7%) |
| Did the review evaluate the certainty of evidence using a formal system? | |
| Yes, using GRADE15 | 9 (6%) |
| Yes, using NutriGRADE79 | 2 (1.3%) |
| Yes, using SIGN80 | 1 (0.7%) |
| Yes, using the NHMRC FORM methodology81 | 1 (0.7%) |
| Yes, using a modified version American Diabetes Association system32 | 1 (0.7%) |
| Yes, using a modified version of the National Osteoporosis Foundation evidence grading system82 | 1 (0.7%) |
| Yes, using an ad hoc system | 1 (0.7%) |
| No | 134 (89.3%) |
| Among reviews that used a formal system to evaluate the certainty of evidence (n=16; 10.7%), was the certainty of evidence downgraded due to risk of bias? | |
| Yes | 5 (31.3%) |
| No | 11 (73.3%) |