• 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

. 2025 ; 23 (3) : 441-453. [pub] 20240822

Language English Country United States

Document type Journal Article

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.

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

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...