IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0120519.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Method Quality of Cross-Over Studies Involved in Cochrane Systematic Reviews

Author

Listed:
  • Hong Ding
  • Guang Li Hu
  • Xue Yan Zheng
  • Qing Chen
  • Diane Erin Threapleton
  • Zeng Huan Zhou

Abstract

Background: It is possible that cross-over studies included in current systematic reviews are being inadequately assessed, because the current risk of bias tools do not consider possible biases specific to cross-over design. We performed this study to evaluate whether this was being done in cross-over studies included in Cochrane Systematic Reviews (CSRs). Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library (up to 2013 issue 5) for CSRs that included at least one cross-over trial. Two authors independently undertook the study selection and data extraction. A random sample of the CSRs was selected and we evaluated whether the cross-over trials in these CSRs were assessed according to criteria suggested by the Cochrane handbook. In addition we reassessed the risk of bias of these cross-over trials by a checklist developed form the Cochrane handbook. Results: We identified 688 CSRs that included one or more cross-over studies. We chose a random sample of 60 CSRs and these included 139 cross-over studies. None of these CSRs undertook a risk of bias assessment specific for cross-over studies. In fact items specific for cross-over studies were seldom considered anywhere in quality assessment of these CSRs. When we reassessed the risk of bias, including the 3 items specific to cross-over trials, of these 139 studies, a low risk of bias was judged for appropriate cross-over design in 110(79%), carry-over effects in 48(34%) and for reporting data in all stages of the trial in 114(82%).Assessment of biases in cross-over trials could affect the GRADE assessment of a review’s findings. Conclusion: The current Cochrane risk of bias tool is not adequate to assess cross-over studies. Items specific to cross-over trials leading to potential risk of bias are generally neglected in CSRs. A proposed check list for the evaluation of cross-over trials is provided.

Suggested Citation

  • Hong Ding & Guang Li Hu & Xue Yan Zheng & Qing Chen & Diane Erin Threapleton & Zeng Huan Zhou, 2015. "The Method Quality of Cross-Over Studies Involved in Cochrane Systematic Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-8, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0120519
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120519
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0120519
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0120519&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0120519?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0120519. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.