R0002/2026-03-13/C005/H2¶
Statement¶
RoB 2 has five domains, COI/funding is absent, but this is by deliberate design and not widely seen as a deficiency by the tool developers.
Status¶
Current: Partially supported
Supporting Evidence¶
| Evidence | Summary |
|---|---|
| SRC03-E01 | Co-developer published formal argument against including funding as a bias domain |
Contradicting Evidence¶
| Evidence | Summary |
|---|---|
| SRC02-E02 | External peer-reviewed study recommends adding funding source |
| SRC02-E01 | Documents that 15.6% of RoB 1 assessments used "other bias" for funding |
Reasoning¶
H2 is partially supported. Sterne's published defense demonstrates that the absence is deliberate and reasoned, not an oversight. However, the existence of external criticism (Nejadghaderi et al.) and the development of a separate tool (TACIT) to address the gap suggest the broader community does see it as a deficiency, even if the developers disagree. H2 correctly captures the developers' perspective but does not represent the community consensus.
Relationship to Other Hypotheses¶
H2 is the complement of H1. They agree on facts but differ on normative framing. The assessment synthesizes both perspectives rather than choosing one over the other.