SRC02¶


Research	R0002 — Research Standards for AI-Assisted Writing
Run	2026-03-13
Claim	C005
Search	S01
Result	S01-R02
Source	SRC02

Nejadghaderi et al. 2024

Source¶

Nejadghaderi SA, et al. "Comparison of Risk of Bias 2 and Original Risk of Bias." PMC11147813. 2024.

URL: Not captured — experimental run

Dimension	Rating
Reliability	High
Relevance	High
Bias: Missing data	Low risk
Bias: Measurement	Low risk
Bias: Selective reporting	Low risk
Bias: Randomization	N/A — not an RCT
Bias: Protocol deviation	N/A — not an RCT
Bias: COI/Funding	Some concerns — authors advocate for including funding/COI

Dimension	Rationale
Reliability	Peer-reviewed comparison study published in a PubMed Central indexed journal. Systematic approach comparing two versions of the RoB tool. Quantitative data on domain usage.
Relevance	Directly addresses the comparison between RoB 2 and the original RoB, including the removal of the "other bias" domain. Provides the key data point that funding (15.6%) and COI (5.8%) were frequently assessed in RoB 1's "other bias" domain.
Bias flags	Authors advocate for expanding RoB domains to include funding/COI. This perspective is favorable to the claim's "conspicuously absent" framing. Noted as a potential source of bias but mitigated by the inclusion of Sterne's counterargument (SRC03).

Evidence ID	Summary
SRC02-E01	"Other bias" domain removed in RoB 2; funding assessed 15.6% of time in RoB 1
SRC02-E02	Recommends funding source be considered in future revisions