R0002/2026-03-13/C005/SRC03¶
Sterne 2024
Source¶
Sterne JAC, et al. "Why risk of bias assessments should not include funding source." PMC10897924. 2024.
URL: Not captured — experimental run
Summary¶
| Dimension | Rating |
|---|---|
| Reliability | High |
| Relevance | High |
| Bias: Missing data | Low risk |
| Bias: Measurement | N/A — editorial/commentary |
| Bias: Selective reporting | Low risk |
| Bias: Randomization | N/A — not an RCT |
| Bias: Protocol deviation | N/A — not an RCT |
| Bias: COI/Funding | High concern — author is RoB 2 co-developer defending design choice |
Rationale¶
| Dimension | Rationale |
|---|---|
| Reliability | Jonathan Sterne is a co-developer of RoB 2. Published in a peer-reviewed journal. This is the most authoritative possible source for the developers' reasoning — the person who designed the tool explaining why it was designed that way. |
| Relevance | Directly addresses the exact question of why COI/funding is absent from RoB 2. Provides the developers' reasoning, not just the fact of the absence. Exact topic match. |
| Bias flags | High COI concern. Sterne is defending his own design choice. This is expected — a tool developer explaining their design — but it means the source's normative claims should be weighted accordingly. The factual claims about RoB 2's design are reliable; the argument that the design is correct is inherently interested. |
Evidence Extracts¶
| Evidence ID | Summary |
|---|---|
| SRC03-E01 | Sterne argues funding is not a direct mechanism of bias; TACIT tool addresses COI separately |