-
Something wrong with this record ?
The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for cohort studies
TH. Barker, S. Hasanoff, E. Aromataris, JC. Stone, J. Leonardi-Bee, K. Sears, N. Habibi, M. Klugar, C. Tufanaru, S. Moola, XL. Liu, Z. Munn
Language English Country United States
Document type Journal Article
- MeSH
- Cohort Studies MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Research Design * standards MeSH
- Bias * MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
Cohort studies are a robust analytical observational study design that explore the difference in outcomes between two cohorts, differentiated by their exposure status. Despite being observational in nature, they are often included in systematic reviews of effectiveness, particularly when randomized controlled trials are limited or not feasible. Like all studies included in a systematic review, cohort studies must undergo a critical appraisal process to assess the extent to which a study has considered potential bias in its design, conduct, or analysis. Critical appraisal tools facilitate this evaluation. This paper introduces the revised critical appraisal tool for cohort studies, completed by the JBI Effectiveness Methodology Group, who are currently revising the suite of JBI critical appraisal tools for quantitative study designs. The revised tool responds to updates in methodological guidance from the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group and reporting guidance from PRISMA 2020, providing a robust framework for evaluating risk of bias in a cohort study. Transparent and rigorous assessment using this tool will assist reviewers in understanding the validity and relevance of the results and conclusions drawn from a systematic review that includes cohort studies. This may contribute to better evidence-based decision-making in health care. This paper discusses the key changes made to the tool, outlines justifications for these changes, and provides practical guidance on how this tool should be interpreted and applied by systematic reviewers.
Health Economics and Value Assessment Sanofi Healthcare India Pvt Ltd India
JBI Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences The University of Adelaide Adelaide SA Australia
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc25009768
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20250429135523.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 250415s2025 xxu f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.11124/JBIES-24-00103 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)39177422
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xxu
- 100 1_
- $a Barker, Timothy H $u JBI, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia $u Health Evidence Synthesis, Recommendations and Impact (HESRI), School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia $1 https://orcid.org/000000026897814
- 245 14
- $a The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for cohort studies / $c TH. Barker, S. Hasanoff, E. Aromataris, JC. Stone, J. Leonardi-Bee, K. Sears, N. Habibi, M. Klugar, C. Tufanaru, S. Moola, XL. Liu, Z. Munn
- 520 9_
- $a Cohort studies are a robust analytical observational study design that explore the difference in outcomes between two cohorts, differentiated by their exposure status. Despite being observational in nature, they are often included in systematic reviews of effectiveness, particularly when randomized controlled trials are limited or not feasible. Like all studies included in a systematic review, cohort studies must undergo a critical appraisal process to assess the extent to which a study has considered potential bias in its design, conduct, or analysis. Critical appraisal tools facilitate this evaluation. This paper introduces the revised critical appraisal tool for cohort studies, completed by the JBI Effectiveness Methodology Group, who are currently revising the suite of JBI critical appraisal tools for quantitative study designs. The revised tool responds to updates in methodological guidance from the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group and reporting guidance from PRISMA 2020, providing a robust framework for evaluating risk of bias in a cohort study. Transparent and rigorous assessment using this tool will assist reviewers in understanding the validity and relevance of the results and conclusions drawn from a systematic review that includes cohort studies. This may contribute to better evidence-based decision-making in health care. This paper discusses the key changes made to the tool, outlines justifications for these changes, and provides practical guidance on how this tool should be interpreted and applied by systematic reviewers.
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a kohortové studie $7 D015331
- 650 12
- $a zkreslení výsledků (epidemiologie) $7 D015982
- 650 12
- $a výzkumný projekt $x normy $7 D012107
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 700 1_
- $a Hasanoff, Sabira $u Health Evidence Synthesis, Recommendations and Impact (HESRI), School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia $1 https://orcid.org/0000000172460485
- 700 1_
- $a Aromataris, Edoardo $u JBI, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia $1 https://orcid.org/0000000172385833
- 700 1_
- $a Stone, Jennifer C $u JBI, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
- 700 1_
- $a Leonardi-Bee, Jo $u The Nottingham Centre for Evidence Based Healthcare: A JBI Centre of Excellence, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham UK
- 700 1_
- $a Sears, Kim $u Queen's Collaboration for Health Care Quality: A JBI Centre of Excellence, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
- 700 1_
- $a Habibi, Nahal $u JBI, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
- 700 1_
- $a Klugar, Miloslav $u Czech National Centre for Evidence-Based Healthcare and Knowledge Translation (Cochrane Czech Republic, Czech EBHC: JBI Centre of Excellence, Masaryk University GRADE Centre), Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic $u Center for Evidence-Based Education and Arts Therapies: A JBI Affiliated Group, Faculty of Education, Palacký University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Tufanaru, Catalin $u Centre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- 700 1_
- $a Moola, Sandeep $u Health Economics and Value Assessment, Sanofi Healthcare India Pvt Ltd, India
- 700 1_
- $a Liu, Xian-Liang $u School of Nursing and Health Studies, Hong Kong Metropolitan University, Homantin, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China
- 700 1_
- $a Munn, Zachary $u Health Evidence Synthesis, Recommendations and Impact (HESRI), School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia $1 https://orcid.org/0000000270915842
- 773 0_
- $w MED00207800 $t JBI evidence synthesis $x 2689-8381 $g Roč. 23, č. 3 (2025), s. 441-453
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39177422 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20250415 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20250429135518 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 2311256 $s 1246849
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC-MEDLINE
- BMC __
- $a 2025 $b 23 $c 3 $d 441-453 $e 20240822 $i 2689-8381 $m JBI evidence synthesis $n JBI Evid Synth $x MED00207800
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20250415