Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37423253›Full record

ArticleKorean journal of family medicine2023

RoBANS 2: A Revised Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions.

Hyun-Ju Seo, Soo Young Kim, Yoon Jae Lee, Ji-Eun Park

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Korean journal of family medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 36 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 36 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

69 citing papers in PubMed, 36 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of intratympanic application of different corticosteroids: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Guideline
  20. Pooled it

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Hyun-Ju SeoCollege of Nursing, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, Korea.
Soo Young KimDepartment of Family Medicine, College of Medicine, Hallym University, Seoul, Korea.
Yoon Jae LeeJaseng Spine and Joint Research Institute, Jaseng Medical Foundation, Seoul, Korea.
Ji-Eun ParkCenter for Global Collaboration, Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine, Daejeon, Korea.

Funding

Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assessment of the risk of bias is an essential component of any systematic review. This is true for both nonrandomized studies and randomized trials, which are the main study designs of systematic reviews. The Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomized Studies (RoBANS) was developed in 2013 and has gained wide usage as a risk-of-bias assessment tool for nonrandomized studies. Four risk-of-bias assessment experts revised it by reviewing existing assessment tools and user surveys. The main modifications included additional domains of selection and detection bias susceptible to nonrandomized studies of interventions, a more detailed consideration of the comparability of participants, and more reliable and valid outcome measurements. A psychometric assessment of the revised RoBANS (RoBANS 2) revealed acceptable inter-rater reliability (weighted kappa, 0.25 to 0.49) and construct validity in which intervention effects of studies with an unclear or high risk of bias were overestimated. The RoBANS 2 has acceptable feasibility, fair-to-moderate reliability, and construct validity. It provides a comprehensive framework for allowing authors to assess and understand the plausible risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions.

Indexed as

BiasNonrandomized StudiesRisk AssessmentSystematic Review

Identifiers

PMID37423253
PMCPMC10522469

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.