Tools to Assess the Risk of Bias and Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials in Rehabilitation

Instruments assessing risk of bias of randomized trials frequently included items that are not addressing risk of bias issues

OBJECTIVES

To establish whether items included in instruments published in the last decade assessing risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are indeed addressing risk of bias.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus from 2010 to October 2021 for instruments assessing risk of bias of RCTs. By extracting items and summarizing their essential content, we generated an item list. Items that two reviewers agreed clearly did not address risk of bias were excluded. We included the remaining items in a survey in which 13 experts judged the issue each item is addressing: risk of bias, applicability, random error, reporting quality, or none of the above.

RESULTS

Seventeen eligible instruments included 127 unique items. After excluding 61 items deemed as clearly not addressing risk of bias, the item classification survey included 66 items, of which the majority of respondents deemed 20 items (30.3%) as addressing risk of bias; the majority deemed 11 (16.7%) as not addressing risk of bias; and there proved substantial disagreement for 35 (53.0%) items.

CONCLUSION

Existing risk of bias instruments frequently include items that do not address risk of bias. For many items, experts disagree on whether or not they are addressing risk of bias.

Reevaluating the Use of Sound Therapy for Tinnitus Management: Perspectives on Relevant Systematic Reviews

PURPOSE

Tinnitus is a highly prevalent condition that can severely reduce health functioning. In spite of extant clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), implementation of these CPGs is relatively uncommon. As a result, patients seeking professional services for tinnitus often have no assurance of receiving evidence-based care. The purpose of this tutorial was to clarify the evidence for sound therapy so that it may be included in future CPGs for tinnitus.

METHOD

"Best clinical evidence" is obtained from high-quality systematic reviews, which are generally considered the highest level of evidence. Our review of recent, comprehensive, high-quality systematic reviews of interventions for tinnitus concludes that cognitive behavioral therapy is the only effective intervention, though the strength of evidence was generally rated as low in these reviews. Although trials of sound therapy for tinnitus have been included in these reviews, they have been rated as having high risk of bias (RoB) and not included in syntheses or rated as insufficient strength of evidence.

RESULTS

Conclusions from these and other reviews have influenced recommendations made in CPGs for tinnitus. These conclusions, however, can make it appear that an intervention for tinnitus is not effective, even if the opposite is true. We contend that the strict inclusion criteria for these reviews are counterproductive and have the effect of obscuring decades of evidence demonstrating the clinical effectiveness of sound therapies for tinnitus. Ultimately, this process has resulted in many patients not receiving sound therapy, despite what should be sufficient evidence that this is an effective form of intervention.

CONCLUSION

If we rely on systematic reviews using contemporary RoB assessment criteria for studies published prior to these reporting guidelines, then we risk excluding important conclusions regarding interventions that could help patients in need.