ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions
Abstract
Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.
Cite this
Jonathan A C Sterne, Miguel Ángel Hernán, Barnaby C Reeves, Jelena Savović, Nancy D Berkman, Meera Viswanathan, … Julian P. T. Higgins (2016). ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919
@article{c2016robinsi,
title = {ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions},
author = {Sterne, Jonathan A C and Hernán, Miguel Ángel and Reeves, Barnaby C and Savović, Jelena and Berkman, Nancy D and Viswanathan, Meera and Henry, David A and Altman, Douglas G. and Ansari, Mohammed and Boutron, Isabelle and Carpenter, James R. and Chan, An‐Wen and Churchill, Rachel C. and Deeks, Jonathan James and Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn and Kirkham, Jamie J and Jüni, Peter and Loke, Yoon Kong and Pigott, Theresa D and Ramsay, Craig Robert and Regidor, Deborah L. and Rothstein, Hannah R. and Sandhu, Lakhbir and Santaguida, Pasqualina L. and Schünemann, Holger Jens and Shea, Bev and Shrier, Ian and Tugwell, Peter and Turner, Lucy and Valentine, Jeffrey C. and Waddington, Hugh Sharma and Waters, Elizabeth and Wells, George A. and Whiting, Penny F. and Higgins, Julian P. T.},
year = {2016},
journal = {BMJ},
doi = {10.1136/bmj.i4919}
}Citations in this library
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 20,225 citations exist upstream.