Improving the assessment of risk of bias due to missing evidence in systematic reviews

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses aim to synthesize all existing evidence on a clinical question. The results of systematic reviews may be biased when some evidence is missing from the review for a reason related to the findings. For example, a study may only be published if the findings are statistically significant (also known as publication bias). A new tool – the Risk of Bias due to Missing Evidence (ROB-ME) tool – has been developed to help authors assess this source of bias in their review. Given its recent development, there has been no evaluation of the measurement properties and influence of the ROB-ME tool on the conclusions of systematic reviews. Possible objectives of this PhD project are to: (1) Evaluate the inter-rater reliability of ROB-ME assessments in a sample of systematic reviews; (2) Conduct cognitive testing (e.g. focus groups, interviews) with users applying the ROB-ME tool for the first time, to determine whether they are interpreting the tool and guidance as anticipated; (3) Evaluate the concurrent validity of ROB-ME assessments when compared with existing tools for assessing risk of bias due to missing evidence; (4) Develop and pilot an educational intervention to improve reproducibility of ROB-ME assessments; (5) Explore whether inclusion of ROB-ME judgements to abstracts of systematic reviews influences readers’ interpretation of the findings. Generally speaking, for candidature you will need a degree at the equivalent Monash level of at least high second class honours and research experience. For a scholarship you will need a first class honours degree and at least one publication in a Scopus-listed journal.