R0002/2026-03-13/C005 — Self-Audit¶
Summary¶
| Domain | Rating |
|---|---|
| Eligibility criteria | Low risk |
| Search comprehensiveness | Low risk |
| Evaluation consistency | Low risk |
| Synthesis fairness | Low risk |
Overall risk of bias: Low
Detail¶
Eligibility Criteria¶
Rating: Low risk
Sources were included if they directly addressed the RoB 2 domain structure, the COI/funding absence, or the debate surrounding it. Official Cochrane documentation, peer-reviewed comparison studies, and the tool developer's published defense were all included. No borderline decisions were required.
Search Comprehensiveness¶
Rating: Low risk
Four searches conducted: two broad web searches (S01, S02) and two targeted WebFetch operations (S03, S04). Both sides of the debate were found without additional effort — the critics (Nejadghaderi et al.) and the defenders (Sterne) were surfaced by the initial searches.
Evaluation Consistency¶
Rating: Low risk
All sources evaluated using the same scorecard dimensions. Sterne's high COI as a tool developer was explicitly noted and flagged. Nejadghaderi et al.'s advocacy perspective was also noted. Neither confirming nor disconfirming sources received differential treatment.
Synthesis Fairness¶
Rating: Low risk
The synthesis explicitly presents both sides of the normative debate. Sterne's counterargument is given full weight alongside the critics' recommendations. The "conspicuous" characterization is assessed as "defensible but one-sided" rather than simply accepted or rejected. The nuance is preserved.
Flags¶
No flags raised.