Reading list

Current reading list (December 2021)

We have been keeping an eye on the methods literature, and think people with an interest in the Bias Methods Group may be interested in the following aticles published recently:

Bramley P, López-López JA, Higgins JPT. Examining how meta-analytic methods perform in the presence of bias. Research Synthesis Methods 2021;12:816-830.


Chiocchia V, Nikolakopoulou A, Higgins JPT, et al. ROB-MEN: a tool to assess risk of bias due to missing evidence in network meta-analysis. BMC Med 2021;19:304.


Fabbri A, Hone KR, Hróbjartsson A, Lundh A. Conflict of Interest Policies at Medical Schools and Teaching Hospitals: A Systematic Review of Cross-sectional Studies. Int J Health Policy Manag 2021;doi:10.34172/ijhpm.2021.12.


Fabbri A, Nejstgaard CH, Grundy Q, et al. Association Between Conflicts of Interest and Authors' Positions on Harms of Varenicline: a Cross-Sectional Analysis. J Gen Intern Med 2021;doi:10.1007/s11606-021-06915-1.


Ghannad M, Yang B, Leeflang M, et al. A randomized trial of an editorial intervention to reduce spin in the abstract's conclusion of manuscripts showed no significant effect. J Clin Epidemiol 2021;130:69-77.


Grégory J, Créquit P, Vilgrain V, et al. Published trials of TACE for HCC are often not registered and subject to outcome reporting bias. JHEP Rep 2021;3:100196.


Igelström E, Campbell M, Craig P, Katikireddi SV. Cochrane's risk of bias tool for non-randomized studies (ROBINS-I) is frequently misapplied: A methodological systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2021;140:22-32.


Jeyaraman MM, Robson RC, Copstein L, et al. Customized guidance/training improved the psychometric properties of methodologically rigorous risk of bias instruments for non-randomized studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2021;136:157-167.


Lancee M, Schuring M, Tijdink JK, et al. Selective outcome reporting across psychopharmacotherapy randomized controlled trials. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 2021:e1900.


Minozzi S, Dwan K, Borrelli F, Filippini G. Reliability of the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB2) improved with the use of implementation instruction. J Clin Epidemiol 2021;141:99-105.


Paludan-Müller AS, Créquit P, Boutron I. Reporting of harms in oncological clinical study reports submitted to the European Medicines Agency compared to trial registries and publications-a methodological review. BMC Med 2021;19:88.


Perry R, Whitmarsh A, Leach V, Davies P. A comparison of two assessment tools used in overviews of systematic reviews: ROBIS versus AMSTAR-2. Syst Rev 2021;10:273.


Tsujimoto Y, Tsutsumi Y, Kataoka Y, et al. Around ten percent of most recent Cochrane reviews included outcomes in their literature search strategy and were associated with potentially exaggerated results: A research-on-research study. J Clin Epidemiol 2021;141:74-81.


Vinkers CH, Lamberink HJ, Tijdink JK, et al. The methodological quality of 176,620 randomized controlled trials published between 1966 and 2018 reveals a positive trend but also an urgent need for improvement. PLoS Biol 2021;19:e3001162.

Former reading lists

The March 2021 reading list can be found here.

The July 2020 reading list can be found here.

The December 2019 reading list can be found here.

The March 2019 reading list can be found here.

The August 2018 reading list can be found here.

The February 2018 reading list can be found here.