{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,21]],"date-time":"2026-08-21T23:18:48Z","timestamp":1787354328147,"version":"build-2736575974"},"reference-count":25,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","issue":"1","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2021,7,18]],"date-time":"2021-07-18T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1626566400000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2021,7,18]],"date-time":"2021-07-18T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1626566400000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["BMC Med Res Methodol"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2021,12]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title><jats:sec>\n                <jats:title>Background<\/jats:title>\n                <jats:p>Initially, the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool had a domain for \u201cblinding of participants, personnel and outcome assessors\u201d. In the 2011 tool, the assessment of blinding was split into two domains: blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) and blinding of outcome assessors (detection bias). The aims of this study were twofold; first, to analyze the frequency of usage of the joint blinding domain (a single domain for performance and detection bias), and second, to assess the proportion of adequate assessments made in the joint versus single RoB domains for blinding by comparing whether authors\u2019 RoB judgments were supported by explanatory comments in line with the Cochrane Handbook recommendations.<\/jats:p>\n              <\/jats:sec><jats:sec>\n                <jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n                <jats:p>We extracted information about the assessment of blinding from RoB tables (judgment, comment, and whether it was specified which outcome type; e.g., objective, subjective) of 729 Cochrane reviews published in 2015-2016. In the Cochrane RoB tool, judgment (low, unclear or high risk) needs to be accompanied by a transparent comment, in which authors provide a summary justifying RoB judgment, to ensure transparency in how these judgments were reached. We reassessed RoB based on the supporting comments reported in Cochrane RoB tables, in line with instructions from the Cochrane Handbook. Then, we compared our new assessments to judgments made by Cochrane authors. We compared the frequency of adequate judgments in reviews with two separate domains for blinding versus those with a joint domain for blinding.<\/jats:p>\n              <\/jats:sec><jats:sec>\n                <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                <jats:p>The total number of assessments for performance bias was 6918, with 8656 for detection bias and 3169 for the joint domain. The frequency of adequate assessments was 74% for performance bias, 78% for detection bias, and 59% for the joint domain. The lowest frequency of adequate assessments was found when Cochrane authors judged low risk \u2013 47% in performance bias, 62% in detection bias, and 31% in the joint domain. The joint domain and detection bias domain had a similar proportion of specified outcome types (17% and 18%, respectively).<\/jats:p>\n              <\/jats:sec><jats:sec>\n                <jats:title>Conclusions<\/jats:title>\n                <jats:p>Splitting joint RoB assessment about blinding into two domains was justified because the frequency of adequate judgments was higher in separate domains. Specification of outcome types in RoB domains should be further scrutinized.<\/jats:p>\n              <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1186\/s12874-021-01339-1","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2021,7,18]],"date-time":"2021-07-18T08:03:26Z","timestamp":1626595406000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":8,"title":["Assessing the risk of performance and detection bias in Cochrane reviews as a joint domain is less accurate compared to two separate domains"],"prefix":"10.1186","volume":"21","author":[{"given":"Ognjen","family":"Barcot","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Matija","family":"Boric","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Svjetlana","family":"Dosenovic","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-8467-6061","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Livia","family":"Puljak","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2021,7,18]]},"reference":[{"issue":"1","key":"1339_CR1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"121","DOI":"10.1186\/s12874-020-00966-4","volume":"20","author":"MF Marusic","year":"2020","unstructured":"Marusic MF, Fidahic M, Cepeha CM, Farcas LG, Tseke A, Puljak L. Methodological tools and sensitivity analysis for assessing quality or risk of bias used in systematic reviews published in the high-impact anesthesiology journals. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):121.","journal-title":"BMC Med Res Methodol"},{"key":"1339_CR2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Higgins J, Altman D: In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Higgins JPT, Green S, editor. Chichester: Wiley; 2008. Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies; pp. 187\u2013241. 2008.","DOI":"10.1002\/9780470712184.ch8"},{"key":"1339_CR3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"80","DOI":"10.1186\/s13643-016-0259-8","volume":"5","author":"L Jorgensen","year":"2016","unstructured":"Jorgensen L, Paludan-Muller AS, Laursen DR, Savovic J, Boutron I, Sterne JA, Higgins JP, Hrobjartsson A. Evaluation of the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized clinical trials: overview of published comments and analysis of user practice in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5:80.","journal-title":"Syst Rev"},{"key":"1339_CR4","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928.","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.d5928"},{"key":"1339_CR5","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VAe. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). Cochrane, 2020. Available from www.training.cochrane.org\/handbook.","DOI":"10.1002\/9781119536604"},{"key":"1339_CR6","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Babic A, Pijuk A, Br\u00e1zdilov\u00e1 L, Georgieva Y, Raposo Pereira MA, Poklepovic Pericic T, Puljak L. The judgement of biases included in the category \u201cother bias\u201d in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: a systematic survey. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):77.","DOI":"10.1186\/s12874-019-0718-8"},{"key":"1339_CR7","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Babic A, Tokalic R. Am\u00edlcar Silva Cunha J, Novak I, Suto J, Vidak M, Miosic I, Vuka I, Poklepovic Pericic T, Puljak L. Assessments of attrition bias in Cochrane systematic reviews are highly inconsistent and thus hindering trial comparability. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):76.","DOI":"10.1186\/s12874-019-0717-9"},{"issue":"1","key":"1339_CR8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"170","DOI":"10.1186\/s12874-019-0804-y","volume":"19","author":"O Barcot","year":"2019","unstructured":"Barcot O, Boric M, Poklepovic Pericic T, Cavar M, Dosenovic S, Vuka I, Puljak L. Risk of bias judgments for random sequence generation in Cochrane systematic reviews were frequently not in line with Cochrane Handbook. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):170.","journal-title":"BMC Med Res Methodol"},{"key":"1339_CR9","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Propadalo I, Tranfic M, Vuka I, Barcot O, Pericic TP, Puljak L. In Cochrane reviews, risk of bias assessments for allocation concealment were frequently not in line with Cochrane\u2019s Handbook guidance. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;106:10\u20137.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2018.10.002"},{"key":"1339_CR10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"53","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2019.04.007","volume":"112","author":"F Saric","year":"2019","unstructured":"Saric F, Barcot O, Puljak L. Risk of bias assessments for selective reporting were inadequate in the majority of Cochrane reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;112:53\u20138.","journal-title":"J Clin Epidemiol"},{"key":"1339_CR11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"104","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2019.05.012","volume":"113","author":"O Barcot","year":"2019","unstructured":"Barcot O, Boric M, Dosenovic S, Poklepovic Pericic T, Cavar M, Puljak L. Risk of bias assessments for blinding of participants and personnel in Cochrane reviews were frequently inadequate. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;113:104\u201313.","journal-title":"J Clin Epidemiol"},{"issue":"8","key":"1339_CR12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"585","DOI":"10.2217\/cer-2019-0181","volume":"9","author":"O Barcot","year":"2020","unstructured":"Barcot O, Dosenovic S, Boric M, Pericic TP, Cavar M, Jelicic Kadic A, Puljak L. Assessing risk of bias judgments for blinding of outcome assessors in Cochrane reviews. J Comparative Effect Res. 2020;9(8):585\u201393.","journal-title":"J Comparative Effect Res"},{"key":"1339_CR13","unstructured":"Higgins JPT, Green S, (editors): Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration 2011. Available from http:\/\/handbook-5-1.cochrane.org\/. Last accessed 22.11.2018."},{"key":"1339_CR14","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Armijo-Olivo S, Ospina M, da Costa BR, Egger M, Saltaji H, Fuentes J, Ha C, Cummings GG. Poor Reliability between Cochrane Reviewers and Blinded External Reviewers When Applying the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool in Physical Therapy Trials. PLOS ONE 2014;9(5):e96920.","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0096920"},{"issue":"9","key":"1339_CR15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"973","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2012.07.005","volume":"66","author":"L Hartling","year":"2013","unstructured":"Hartling L, Hamm MP, Milne A, Vandermeer B, Santaguida PL, Ansari M, Tsertsvadze A, Hempel S, Shekelle P, Dryden DM. Testing the risk of bias tool showed low reliability between individual reviewers and across consensus assessments of reviewer pairs. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(9):973\u201381.","journal-title":"J Clin Epidemiol"},{"key":"1339_CR16","unstructured":"Higgins JPT: Table 8.5.d: Criteria for judging risk of bias in the \u2018Risk of bias\u2019 assessment tool. In: Higgins J, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 510 (updated March 2011), The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011 [Available from https:\/\/handbook-5-1.cochrane.org\/index.htm#chapter_8\/table_8_4_a_a_common_classification_scheme_for_bias.htm]. Last accessed: September 28, 2020. 2011."},{"key":"1339_CR17","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Penic A, Begic D, Balajic K, Kowalski M, Marusic A, Puljak L. Definitions of blinding in randomised controlled trials of interventions published in high-impact anaesthesiology journals: a methodological study and survey of authors. BMJ Open. 2020;10(4):e035168.","DOI":"10.1136\/bmjopen-2019-035168"},{"issue":"15","key":"1339_CR18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2000","DOI":"10.1001\/jama.285.15.2000","volume":"285","author":"PJ Devereaux","year":"2001","unstructured":"Devereaux PJ, Manns BJ, Ghali WA, Quan H, Lacchetti C, Montori VM, Bhandari M, Guyatt GH. Physician interpretations and textbook definitions of blinding terminology in randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2001;285(15):2000\u20133.","journal-title":"JAMA"},{"issue":"4","key":"1339_CR19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"360","DOI":"10.1177\/1740774506069153","volume":"3","author":"MT Haahr","year":"2006","unstructured":"Haahr MT, Hr\u00f3bjartsson A. Who is blinded in randomized clinical trials? A study of 200 trials and a survey of authors. Clinical trials (London, England). 2006;3(4):360\u20135.","journal-title":"Clinical trials (London, England)"},{"issue":"1","key":"1339_CR20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"99","DOI":"10.1186\/s12874-018-0562-2","volume":"18","author":"M Gates","year":"2018","unstructured":"Gates M, Elliott SA, Johnson C, Thomson D, Williams K, Fernandes RM, Hartling L. A descriptive analysis of non-Cochrane child-relevant systematic reviews published in 2014. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):99.","journal-title":"BMC Med Res Methodol"},{"key":"1339_CR21","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, Tricco AC, Catal\u00e1-L\u00f3pez F, Li L, Reid EK, Sarkis-Onofre R et al: Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study. PLoS Med 2016, 13(5):e1002028.","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pmed.1002028"},{"key":"1339_CR22","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"114","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2020.03.019","volume":"123","author":"L Puljak","year":"2020","unstructured":"Puljak L, Ramic I, Arriola Naharro C, Brezova J, Lin YC, Surdila AA, Tomajkova E, Farias Medeiros I, Nikolovska M, Poklepovic Pericic T, et al. Cochrane risk of bias tool was used inadequately in the majority of non-Cochrane systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;123:114\u20139.","journal-title":"J Clin Epidemiol"},{"issue":"6","key":"1339_CR23","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"667","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2014.02.001","volume":"67","author":"E Mathieu","year":"2014","unstructured":"Mathieu E, Herbert RD, McGeechan K, Herbert JJ, Barratt AL. A theoretical analysis showed that blinding cannot eliminate potential for bias associated with beliefs about allocation in randomized clinical trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(6):667\u201371.","journal-title":"J Clin Epidemiol"},{"key":"1339_CR24","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"57","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2019.11.008","volume":"119","author":"A Babic","year":"2020","unstructured":"Babic A, Vuka I, Saric F, Proloscic I, Slapnicar E, Cavar J, Poklepovic Pericic T, Pieper D, Puljak L. Overall bias methods and their use in sensitivity analysis of Cochrane reviews were not consistent. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;119:57\u201364.","journal-title":"J Clin Epidemiol"},{"key":"1339_CR25","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"175","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2020.04.002","volume":"123","author":"L Puljak","year":"2020","unstructured":"Puljak L, Babic A, Pieper D. Limiting the search period in methodological studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;123:175\u20136.","journal-title":"J Clin Epidemiol"}],"container-title":["BMC Medical Research Methodology"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1186\/s12874-021-01339-1.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1186\/s12874-021-01339-1\/fulltext.html","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1186\/s12874-021-01339-1.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2021,7,18]],"date-time":"2021-07-18T08:08:02Z","timestamp":1626595682000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com\/articles\/10.1186\/s12874-021-01339-1"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2021,7,18]]},"references-count":25,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2021,12]]}},"alternative-id":["1339"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12874-021-01339-1","relation":{},"ISSN":["1471-2288"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1471-2288","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2021,7,18]]},"assertion":[{"value":"13 January 2021","order":1,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"17 June 2021","order":2,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"18 July 2021","order":3,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"order":1,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}},{"value":"Not applicable because the study analyzed published articles \u2013 Cochrane reviews.","order":2,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Ethics approval and consent to participate"}},{"value":"Not applicable.","order":3,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Consent for publication"}},{"value":"Livia Puljak is a volunteer member of Cochrane Croatia; this manuscript has analyzed Cochrane\u2019s risk of bias tool, but this study was not an official Cochrane project. Livia Puljak is a Senior Editorial Board member of the BMC Medical Research Methodology, but she was not involved in any way in handling of this manuscript. Other authors have no competing interests to declare.","order":4,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Competing interests"}}],"article-number":"149"}}