Risk of Bias Assessment in JBI Systematic Reviews

A defining feature of many reviews of existing studies, and indeed of reviews using the current JBI method that can be claimed to be systematic, is the critical evaluation of the included studies. It focuses on assessing the quality of behavior (its validity) and the likelihood or likelihood of bias creeping into study design, conduct, or analysis. Apparent risk of bias undermines the reliability of the results and subsequent conclusions. Assessing the risk of bias is an important aspect in the analysis and interpretation of poolings and therefore using the Evaluation of Recommendations, Evaluations, Developments and Evaluations (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of the results presented in the review. make an evaluation.Checklists, scales and domain-based tools should assist systematic appraisers in conducting and presenting appraisals that are consistent and transparent both in their conduct and, ideally, in their reporting; Often used to help. The existing set of JBI checklists to facilitate critical assessments has been available for over 20 years. These tools are widely used by their authors and are appreciated for their ease of use and completeness. The latter facilitates authors' ability to assess the validity of studies across a range of common study designs that rely on a single source of information.

Furthermore, to headline the practical changes for Jbi systematic reviews, the revised JBI tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized controlled trials, one of the most frequently used by review authors, is also presented in this issue. Signaling questions in the revised tool have not been modified from the currently available version; however, the existing questions have now been reorganized and aligned to diverse and recognizable domains of bias. This alignment will help reviewers in their consideration of the impact of potential bias in the results of their analyses. The update also sees the use of this tool prompt users to move beyond assessment of risk of bias at the study level, and to consider the response to a subset of the questions for individual outcomes, as well as for a further subset of questions, considering the results reported. These changes illustrate the first stage in the planned revision process for the JBI tools and, while maintaining the ease of use that has made them so popular, it marks the beginning of a much-needed evolution toward demanding more sophisticated consideration of risk of bias in JBI systematic reviews.

The advent of this first revised tool, and the promise of more to follow in this JBI Evidence Synthesis series on risk of bias, has broader impacts for JBI society members and systematic reviewers. Most importantly, as the new revised tools are introduced, authors who submit manuscripts to JBI Evidence Synthesis, as well as peer reviewers and editors of the journal, will be required to embrace these new tools and the nuances of their use as we move forward, working together to present high-quality evidence informed by the most current methods in synthesis to the community. Over the next 12 months, updates to journal guidelines and templates will be made available, along with a transition period for authors to adopt the new tools during the conduct of their review. Similarly, the content of the JBI education program for synthesis and accredited international trainers, and the forthcoming development of JBI SUMARI—JBI's software to facilitate and support the conduct of systematic reviews—must now also embrace and integrate these changes and evolve accordingly.

In line with the methodological theme for this month, this issue presents a scoping review providing a comprehensive overview of the use of statistical shape modeling of the hip joint, and also a range of review protocols, all linked to investigation of methods of research, its dissemination, or conduct of synthesis. Another notable addition to the content of this edition, although dominated by the methodology of conducting reviews, is from the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group, which delves deeper into the extraction, analysis, and presentation of scoping review results. 's latest guidance. Scoping reviews are a popular review effort, as evidenced by the increase in this type of review in the JBI Evidence Synthesis table of contents over the past couple of years. This additional guide is a must-read for scoping reviewers as it provides additional clarity and useful examples of these important steps in the review process.

David Handerson has been the lead of scientific writer at Jbi since 2015. His passion for helping people in all aspects of health marketing through in the expert industry.