Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies
The objective of this paper is to explain how to apply, interpret, and present the results of a new ...
Abstract Background Systematic reviews, which assess the risk of bias in included studies, are incre...
The objective of this paper is to explain how to apply, interpret, and present the results of a new ...
Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare eval...
Non-randomized studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of health care eva...
Non-randomized studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare eval...
Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare eval...
Development of ROBINS-I was funded by a Methods Innovation Fund grant from Cochrane and Medical Rese...
Abstract Background A new tool to assess Risk of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (RO...
To provide guidance on how systematic review authors, guideline developers, and health technology as...
Background In the absence of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), healthcare practitioners and poli...
OBJECTIVES: To consider methods and related evidence for evaluating bias in non-randomised intervent...
Abstract Background Different tools exist for assessing risk of bias of intervention studies for sys...
Abstract Background The Cochrane Bias Methods Group r...
BackgroundSystematic reviews, which assess the risk of bias in included studies, are increasingly us...
The objective of this paper is to explain how to apply, interpret, and present the results of a new ...
Abstract Background Systematic reviews, which assess the risk of bias in included studies, are incre...
The objective of this paper is to explain how to apply, interpret, and present the results of a new ...
Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare eval...
Non-randomized studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of health care eva...
Non-randomized studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare eval...
Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare eval...
Development of ROBINS-I was funded by a Methods Innovation Fund grant from Cochrane and Medical Rese...
Abstract Background A new tool to assess Risk of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (RO...
To provide guidance on how systematic review authors, guideline developers, and health technology as...
Background In the absence of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), healthcare practitioners and poli...
OBJECTIVES: To consider methods and related evidence for evaluating bias in non-randomised intervent...
Abstract Background Different tools exist for assessing risk of bias of intervention studies for sys...
Abstract Background The Cochrane Bias Methods Group r...
BackgroundSystematic reviews, which assess the risk of bias in included studies, are increasingly us...
The objective of this paper is to explain how to apply, interpret, and present the results of a new ...
Abstract Background Systematic reviews, which assess the risk of bias in included studies, are incre...
The objective of this paper is to explain how to apply, interpret, and present the results of a new ...