Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
39
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
39 results for “Risk of BIas”
First Steps towards a Risk of Bias Corpus of Randomized Controlled Trials
<p><strong>Abstract</strong></p> <p>Risk of bias (RoB) assessment of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is vital to conducting systematic reviews. Manual RoB assessment for hundreds of RCTs is a cognitively demanding, lengthy process and is prone to subjective judgment. Supervised machine learning (ML) can help to accelerate this process but requires a hand-labelled corpus. There are currently no RoB annotation guidelines for randomized clinical trials or annotated corpora. In this pilot project, we test the practicality of directly using the revised Cochrane RoB 2.0 guidelines for developing an RoB annotated corpus using a novel multi-level annotation scheme. We report inter-annotator agreement among four annotators who used Cochrane RoB 2.0 guidelines. The agreement ranges between 0% for some bias classes and 76% for others. Finally, we discuss the shortcomings of this direct translation of annotation guidelines and scheme and suggest approaches to improve them to obtain an RoB annotated corpus suitable for ML.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Methods</strong></p> <p>The upload contains two zip files and a .json file.</p> <ul> <li>plain.html.zip</li> </ul> <p>Original corpus (n = 10) in .html format. The corpus was generated using the methodology described in the paper. Each .html file could be opened in any default text editor in any operating system or browser. A .html contains full text divided into several annotatable text parts. </p> <p> </p> <ul> <li>ann.json.zip</li> </ul> <p>The .zip contains RoB annotations conducted by the authors (R.H., M.S., K.G., R.C.). The annotation files are in .json format. Each .json is divided into two JSON objects and three JSON arrays. </p> <ol> <li>annotatable (object): Parts from the full-text document corresponding to the text parts from the plain .html files. </li> <li>metas (object): full-text document label</li> <li>entities (array): contains labelled entities. Each entity is linked to which part of the full-text it is linked to.</li> <li>relations (array)</li> <li>sources (array)</li> </ol> <p> </p> <ul> <li>annotations-legend.json</li> </ul> <p>This .json file contains entity and entity labels encoded to text legends. For example, entity class label "1_2_Yes_Good" is encoded as "e_113".</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Resources</strong></p> <p>The code to parse annotations can be found on <a href="http:// https://github.com/anjani-dhrangadhariya">GitHub</a>.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Funding</strong></p> <p>HES-SO Valais-Wallis, Sierre, Switzerland</p>
MiRoR7-P1- Disagreements in risk of bias assessment for randomised controlled trials included in more than one Cochrane systematic reviews: a research on research study using cross-sectional design
<p>dataset referring to </p> <p><strong>Disagreements in risk of bias assessment for randomised controlled trials included in more than one Cochrane systematic reviews: a research on research study using cross-sectional design</strong></p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>Lorenzo Bertizzolo<sup>1</sup>, Patrick M Bossuyt<sup>2</sup>, Ignacio Atal<sup>1, 5</sup>, Philippe Ravaud<sup>1, 3-6</sup>, Agnès Dechartres<sup>7</sup></p> <p> </p> <p><sup>1</sup> INSERM, U1153 Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Research Center (CRESS), Methods of therapeutic evaluation of chronic diseases Team (METHODS), Paris, F-75004 France; Paris Descartes University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, France.</p> <p><sup>2</sup> Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands.</p> <p><sup>3</sup> Centre d’Épidémiologie Clinique, Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, AP-HP (Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris), Paris, France.</p> <p><sup>4</sup> Faculté de Médecine, Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France.</p> <p><sup>5</sup> Cochrane France, Paris, France</p> <p><sup>6</sup> Columbia University, Mailman School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, New York, USA</p> <p><sup>7</sup> Sorbonne Université, INSERM, Institut Pierre Louis de Santé Publique, Département Biostatistique, Santé Publique et Information Médicale, AP-HP, Hôpitaux Universitaires Pitié Salpêtrière – Charles Foix, Paris, France</p>
Risk of bias assessments for the Cochrane review 'SARS-CoV-2-neutralising monoclonal antibodies to prevent COVID-19'
<p>Risk of bias assessments and support for judgement with ROB 2 tool for the Cochrane Review: SARS-CoV-2-neutralising monoclonal antibodies to prevent COVID-19.</p>
Risk of bias assessments and support for judgement with ROB 2 tool for the Cochrane Review: Janus kinase inhibitors for the treatment of COVID-19
<p>Risk of bias assessments and support for judgement with ROB 2 tool for the Cochrane Review: Janus kinase inhibitors for the treatment of COVID-19.</p>
Risk of bias assessments for version 5 of the Cochrane review 'Convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19'
<p>Risk of bias assessments and support for judgement with ROB 2 tool for the Cochrane Living Systematic Review: Convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 (Version 5). </p>
Supplementary file ROBINS-I Risk of Bias table in Methylphenidate for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents - assessment of possible adverse events in non-randomised studies.
<p>ROBINS-I Risk og Bias Table</p>
Risk of bias assessments for the Cochrane review 'SARS-CoV-2-neutralising monoclonal antibodies for treatment of COVID-19'
<p>Risk of bias assessments and support for judgement with ROB 2 tool for the Cochrane Review: SARS-CoV-2-neutralising monoclonal antibodies for treatment of COVID-19.</p>
Risk of bias assessment for the Cochrane review "Colchicine for the treatment of COVID-19"
<p>Risk of bias assessment and support for judgement with the RoB 2 tool for the Cochrane review "Colchicine for the treatment of COVID-19"</p>
Risk of bias in assessed studies for LSR: Antiplatelet agents for the treatment of adults with COVID-19
<p>This is our RoB2 excel sheet, in which detailled information about our risk of bias rating can be found. This concerns the outcomes of studies included in our LSR Antiplatelet agents for the treatment of adults with COVID-19. The first version is published before publication of the review.</p>
Data from: Sex bias in mortality risk changes over the lifespan of bottlenose dolphins
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Risk of bias assessments and support for judgement with ROB 2 tool for the Cochrane Review-Update: Systemic corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19.
<p>Risk of bias assessments and support for judgement with ROB 2 tool for the Cochrane Review-Update: Systemic corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19.</p>
Data for: Inter-rater reliability of risk of bias tools for non-randomized studies
<p><strong>PURPOSE:</strong> Currently, there is limited knowledge about the reliability of risk of bias (ROB) tools for assessing internal validity in systematic reviews of exposure and frequency studies. We aimed to identify and then compare the inter-rater reliability (IRR) of six commonly used tools for frequency (Loney scale, Gyorkos checklist, American Academy of Neurology [AAN] tool) and exposure (Newcastle-Ottawa scale, SIGN50 checklist, AAN tool) studies.</p> <p><strong>METHODS:</strong> Six raters independently assessed the ROB of 30 frequency and 30 exposure studies using the 3 respective ROB tools. Articles were rated on a 3-level summary measure of ROB (low, intermediate, or high). We calculated an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for each tool and category of ROB tool. We compared the IRR between ROB tools and tool type by inspection of overlapping ICC 95% CIs and by comparing their coefficients after transformation to Fisher Z values. We assessed criterion validity of the AAN ROB tools by calculating an ICC for each rater in comparison with the original ratings from the AAN.</p> <p><strong>RESULTS:</strong> All individual ROB tools had an IRR in the substantial range or higher (ICC point estimate = 0.61-0.80). The IRR was almost perfect (ICC point estimate > 0.80) for the AAN frequency tool and the SIGN50 checklist. All tools were comparable in IRR, except for the AAN frequency tool which had a significantly higher ICC than the Gyorkos checklist (p=0.021) and trended towards a higher ICC when compared to the Loney scale (p=0.085). When examined by category of ROB tool, scales and checklists had a substantial IRR, whereas the AAN tools had an almost perfect IRR. For the criterion validity of the AAN ROB tools, the average agreement between our raters and the original AAN ratings was moderate.</p> <p><strong>CONCLUSION:</strong> All tools had substantial IRR except for the AAN frequency tool and the SIGN50 checklist, which both had an almost perfect IRR. The AAN ROB tools were the only category of ROB tool to demonstrate an almost perfect IRR. This category of ROB tool had fewer and more simple criteria. Overall, parsimonious tools with clear instructions, such as those from the AAN, may provide more reliable ROB assessments.</p>
Supplementary File_Ivermectin_Risk of Bias Excel Tool (Version 1)
<p>Supplementary material (Risk of Bias Excel Tool (Version 1)) for the Cochrane Review "Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19".</p>
Risk of bias in observational studies using routinely collected data of comparative effectiveness research: a meta-research study
<p>We performed a meta-research study by searching PubMed for comparative effectiveness observational studies evaluating therapeutic interventions using routinely collected data published in high impact factor journals from 01/06/2018 to 30/06/2020. We assessed the reporting of study design (i.e., eligibility, treatment assignment, and the start of follow-up). Risk of selection bias and immortal time bias was determined by assessing if the time of eligibility, treatment assignment and the start of follow-up were synchronised to mimic the randomisation following the target trial emulation framework.</p>
Risk of bias assessments and support for judgement with ROB 2 tool for the Cochrane Review: PEG-asparaginase treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in children: a network meta-analysis
<p>Risk of bias assessments and support for judgement with ROB 2 tool for the Cochrane Review: PEG-asparaginase treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in children: a network meta-analysis</p>
Risk of bias assessments and support for judgement with ROB 2 tool for the Cochrane Review: Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19
<p>Updated Risk of bias assessments and support for judgement with ROB 2 tool for the Cochrane Review: Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19.</p>
Anhang 7 Ausführliche Risk of Bias-Bewertung der eingeschlossenen Studien
<p>The file contains the detailed risk of bias assessment of the included studies in the master thesis "NON-PHARMACOLOGICAL INTERVENTIONS FOR THE TREATMENT OF PAIN IN PATIENTS WITH SPINAL CORD INJURY" – A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW</p>
Table 2. Studies on psychiatric side effects of fluoroquinolones. The risk of bias and study quality assessed with the Effective Public Health Practice Project's Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies (QATQS) was presented as the global rating for each publication (3 – weak).
<p>Studies on psychiatric side effects of fluoroquinolones. The risk of bias and study quality assessed with the Effective Public Health Practice Project’s Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies (QATQS) was presented as the global rating for each publication (3 – weak).</p>
Risk of Bias 2 Data: Cochrane MHFA Systematic Review
<p>These files contain detailed information about how the authors reached their Risk of Bias 2 judgements for results included in the Cochrane review 'MHFA as a tool for improving mental health and well-being'</p>
Data for: Inter-rater reliability of risk of bias tools for non-randomized studies
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.