Skip to main content

Table 3 Items chosen to assess risk of bias of the included studies

From: What is the prevalence of musculoskeletal problems in the elderly population in developed countries? A systematic critical literature review

Item number from original study*

Dimension of bias

Methods domain

Assessment question

Criteria / definitions / categories

Q2

Selection bias

Sample definition and selection

· Are critical inclusion/exclusion criteria clearly stated?

· Target population described?

· Ascertainment procedure for target sample described?

· Study sample representative of the target population described?

· Age range, gender, etc. described?

· Specific inclusion/exclusion criteria stated?

· Sample size described?

Q3

Information bias

Sample definition and selection

· Are the inclusion/exclusion criteria measured using valid and reliable measures

· Ascertainment procedure: Random, stratified, cluster, etc. (if applicable)

· Registry (census, GP databases) (reporting bias?) (if applicable)

· Medical records (clinical or hospital records) (if applicable)

· Non-response analysis (non-response bias) (if applicable)

· Sample size: is it justified or is a power calculation provided?

Q14

Information bias

Soundness of information

· Are outcome measures assessed using valid and reliable measures?

· Questionnaire (is it valid and/or reproducible?) (if applicable)

· Registry (i.e. census, GP databases) (reporting bias?) (if applicable)

· Interviewing bias (i.e. structured, semi-structured, objective) (if applicable)

· Self-reporting (risk of recall bias; shorter recall better than longer recall) (if applicable)

· Observation, examination procedure (observer bias?) (if applicable)

· Q7

· Performance bias

· Exposure

· What is the level of detail in describing the outcome?

· Definition of the MSK condition; anatomical, physiological. (required)

· Definition of symptom(s) (pain, problem, other) (required)

· Definition of period of symptom(s) (required, only if applicable)

· Description of pain intensity (if applicable, not required)

· Overall judgment

· Low risk of bias: Bias, if present, is unlikely to alter the results seriously

· Unclear risk of bias: Impossible to determine risk of bias (either missing or not described well enough)

    

· High risk of bias: Bias may alter the results seriously

  1. * Viswanathan M, Berkman ND. Development of the RTI item bank on risk of bias and precision of observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2011, 65:163-178.