Where is the risk of bias? Considering intervention reporting quality

Gordon, Morris orcid iconORCID: 0000-0002-1216-5158 (2017) Where is the risk of bias? Considering intervention reporting quality. Medical Education . ISSN 0308-0110

[thumbnail of Author Accepted Manuscript]
PDF (Author Accepted Manuscript) - Accepted Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.


Official URL: http://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13277


Editor - I read with great interest the systematic review by Horsely et al.1 This study deploys a robust and transparent methodology to highlight the scale of reporting weaknesses within health education research. As a scholar who works as an Editor for both Cochrane and the Best Evidence Medical Education Collaborative (BEME),2 these findings do not surprise me. When considering clinical and educational research as part of systematic reviews, such weaknesses are frustratingly homogenous. The author’s proposal to mirror shifts within Cochrane to judge quality of health education trials in other ways than simple checklists is one I wholeheartedly support. This is already reflected in risk of bias systems proposed as part of current protocols for systematic review within BEME.3 However, I would maintain that if the focus is shifted from secondary review to primary researchers, the use of CONSORT4 guidance to support writing of manuscripts would cover most items considered within such risk of bias tools and significantly enhance reporting.

Repository Staff Only: item control page