You are viewing the site in preview mode

Skip to main content


Table 3 Summary of risk of bias for all included reviews using ROBIS

From: Integration of care for hypertension and diabetes: a scoping review assessing the evidence from systematic reviews and evaluating reporting

Study Domain 1: Study eligibility criteria* Domain 2: Identification and selection of studies^ Domain 3: Data collection and study appraisal# Domain 4: Synthesis and findings+ Overall risk of bias of review Justification
Atlantis 2014 [23] High Unclear High High High D1: Eligibility criteria lacked detail D2: Unclear whether authors searched for unpublished or ongoing studies and whether selection of studies was completed independently or in duplicate D3: Concerns raised about data extraction and risk of bias assessment D4: Risk of bias was not taken into consideration when conclusions were formed
Huang 2013 [24] High High High High High D1: No published protocol D2: Did not include sources for unpublished reports in search D3: No information on data extraction and risk of bias assessment for two of the studies included in qualitative synthesis D4: Results might have not been reported in light of risk of bias
Joshi 2014 [25] High High High High High D1: No protocol and lack of specific details on eligibility criteria D2: Did not consider other methods of searching for unpublished literature D3: Lack of information on quality assessment D4: Did not pre-specify methods of data analysis. Risk of bias not adequately assessed or reported with results
Smith 2016 [26] Low Low Low Low Low No concerns
Watson 2013 [27] Low Low Low Low Low The review’s eligibility criteria are limited to studies in the English language; however overall there is no concern. After deliberation, all review authors judged this review as a low risk of bias.
  1. *Questions from Domain 1:
  2.    1.1 Did the review adhere to pre-defined objectives and eligibility criteria?
  3.    1.2 Were the eligibility criteria appropriate for the review question?
  4.    1.3 Were eligibility criteria unambiguous?
  5.    1.4 Were all restrictions in eligibility criteria based on study characteristics appropriate (e.g. date, sample size, study quality, outcomes measured)?
  6.    1.5 Were any restrictions in eligibility criteria based on sources of information appropriate (e.g.publication status or format, language, availability ofdata)?
  7. ^Questions from Domain 2:
  8.    2.1 Did the search include an appropriate range of databases/electronic sources for published and unpublished reports?
  9.    2.2 Were methods additional to database searching used to identify relevant reports?
  10.    2.3 Were the terms and structure of the search strategy likely to retrieve as many eligible studies as possible?
  11.    2.4 Were restrictions based on date, publication format, or language appropriate?
  12.    2.5 Were efforts made to minimise error in selection of studies?
  13. #Questions from Domain 3:
  14.    3.1 Were efforts made to minimise error in data collection?
  15.    3.2 Were sufficient study characteristics available for both review authors and readers to be able to interpret the results?
  16.    3.3 Were all relevant study results collected for use in the synthesis?
  17.    3.4 Was risk of bias (or methodological quality) formally assessed using appropriate criteria?
  18.    3.5 Were efforts made to minimise error in risk of bias assessment?
  19. +Questions from Domain 4:
  20.    4.1 Did the synthesis include all studies that it should?
  21.    4.2 Were all pre-defined analyses reported or departures explained?
  22.    4.3 Was the synthesis appropriate given the nature and similarity in the research questions, study designs and outcomes across included studies?
  23.    4.4 Was between-study variation (heterogeneity) minimal or addressed in the synthesis?
  24.    4.5 Were the findings robust, e.g. as demonstrated through funnel plot or sensitivity analyses?
  25.    4.6 Were biases in primary studies minimal or addressed in the synthesis?