Quality of the Systematic Reviews in Cochrane Gynecological Cancer Group and Their Understudied RCTs

Sakineh Hajebrahimi; Nooriyeh Dalir Akbari; Arash Haji Kamanaj; Sina Hassannezhad; Sarina Aminizadeh; Faezeh Darvishi; Reyhaneh HajEbrahimi; Hanieh Salehi-Pourmehr

doi:10.1007/s13224-022-01655-6

Quality of the Systematic Reviews in Cochrane Gynecological Cancer Group and Their Understudied RCTs

J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2022 Aug;72(Suppl 1):346-351. doi: 10.1007/s13224-022-01655-6. Epub 2022 Apr 13.

Authors

Sakineh Hajebrahimi¹, Nooriyeh Dalir Akbari², Arash Haji Kamanaj³, Sina Hassannezhad³, Sarina Aminizadeh³, Faezeh Darvishi³, Reyhaneh HajEbrahimi³, Hanieh Salehi-Pourmehr¹

Affiliations

¹ Research Center for Evidence Based-Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Iranian EBM Center: A Joanna Briggs Institute Center of Excellence, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Azadi street-Golgasht Ave, 5166/15731 Tabriz, East Azarbaijan Iran.
² Urology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
³ Student Research Committee, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.

Abstract

Purpose: Gynecological cancers are common neoplasms in clinical settings with a high impact on the economy of communities. The medical literature is an essential resource to guide clinical decision-making, and misconduct in researches undermines the credibility and integrity of research in general. We aimed to evaluate the quality of Cochrane gynecological cancers reviews and their understudies RCTS among the different biases dimensions.

Methods: This cross-sectional analytical study was performed on 118 systematic reviews published by the Cochrane gynecological cancers Group up to June 2021. The risk of bias was assessed in each Cochrane survey using the Joanna Bridges Institute (JBI) critical assessment tool consisting of 11 questions. The JBI checklist for systematic reviews and research syntheses is available at https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools. After a systematic critical evaluation of the reviews and meta-analysis, we extracted a different bias from all of their understudied RCTs examined in these systematic reviews, which were evaluated by systematic review authors using a standard bias risk tool developed by the Cochrane Group.

Results: Cochrane gynecological cancers reviews had high quality based on appraise results using the JBI appraisal checklist. In addition, all of the included studies used PRISMA standards for reporting their results. However, in their understudied RCTs, the most prevalent risk of bias was unclear selection bias (allocation concealment) and performance bias (blinding of participants and personnel). Also, the highest risk of bias was blinding participants and personnel (performance bias) and incomplete outcome data (attrition bias). Our results showed that the lowest risk of bias was incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) and random sequence generation (selection bias).

Conclusion: Although most Cochrane gynecological cancers reviews had high quality, unclear performance bias was the highest in their understudied RCTs, indicating structural deficiencies.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13224-022-01655-6.

Keywords: Cochrane; Randomized controlled trial; Risk of bias; Systematic review.