{"id":7006,"date":"2020-07-22T08:17:34","date_gmt":"2020-07-22T08:17:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thepublicationplan.com\/?p=7006"},"modified":"2020-07-22T08:17:34","modified_gmt":"2020-07-22T08:17:34","slug":"steps-to-reduce-bias-in-systematic-review-protocols","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thepublicationplan.com\/2020\/07\/22\/steps-to-reduce-bias-in-systematic-review-protocols\/","title":{"rendered":"Steps to reduce bias in systematic review protocols"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"User<\/p>\n

In their own words<\/a>, Cochrane systematic reviews are \u201cthe benchmark for high-quality information about the effectiveness of health care.\u201d However, Cochrane has been criticised over its lack of transparency<\/a> in the past, and Hilda Bastian<\/a>, one of its founding members, thinks there is room for improvement in minimising bias.<\/p>\n

The protocol is a crucial component of a systematic review, and is believed to be the key to minimising bias in the results. However, Bastian argues that there is potential for bias in the protocols themselves. For example, there is a section called \u2018how the intervention might work\u2019 in the background for Cochrane protocols, which is intrinsically biased by assuming the intervention could work, without actively considering if it could do harm. And even if a perfectly unbiased protocol did exist, if the results from the study contradict the preconceived beliefs of its readers (especially around a controversial topic), then the integrity of the protocol is likely to be criticised anyway.<\/p>\n

Bastian proposes that researchers should engage with these potential controversies and be open about the process. Taking inspiration from various systematic review bodies, such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)<\/a> and the Cochrane Handbook<\/a>, her proposed solutions include:<\/p>\n