2.3. Risk of bias and quality assessment
This protocol is extracted from research article:
Can self-management programmes change healthcare utilisation in COPD?
Patient Educ Couns, Jan 1, 2021; DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2020.08.015

Risk of bias was assessed for each study using Cochrane’s Risk of Bias criteria [24]. For each potential source of bias (selection, performance, detection, reporting, and attrition), the risk was assessed to be high, low, or unclear. In addition, the appropriateness of the statistics used to evaluate outcomes were judged against CONSORT guidelines for statistical reporting of clinical trials [26,27]. The associated risk of reporting bias from the analytic plan was also judged to be high, low, or unclear.

By convention, RCTs are assumed to have a ‘good’ quality of evidence, which may be downgraded based on various facets of study design, to ‘moderate,’ ‘poor,’ or ‘very poor’ based on characteristics of the study. Quality of evidence was defined as:

Two independent reviewers scored the selected studies based on these criteria, and provided justifications (KRS and LA). Consensus was achieved on all quality designations, but authors prospectively agreed that disagreements would be resolved through discussion with a third author (EKM). Risk of bias analysis was conducted for each study individually, and then summarised in a risk of bias graph. Individual judgments can be found in Appendix A in the supplementary material.

Note: The content above has been extracted from a research article, so it may not display correctly.

Please log in to submit your questions online.
Your question will be posted on the Bio-101 website. We will send your questions to the authors of this protocol and Bio-protocol community members who are experienced with this method. you will be informed using the email address associated with your Bio-protocol account.

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By using our website, you are agreeing to allow the storage of cookies on your computer.