TELAAH ARTIKEL

PENELITIAN
EKSPERIMENTAL
P E RT E M U A N K E - 1 3
Randomised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool
Controlled
Trial SURE Experimental Studies Critical Appraisal Checklist

JBI Checklist for RCT

NHLBI Quality Assessment of Controlled Intervention Studies

SIGN RCT Checklist

Non ROBINS-I tool

Randomised
Controlled SURE Experimental Studies Critical Appraisal Checklist
Trial JBI checklist for Quasi Experimental Studies

NHLBI Quality Assessment of Controlled Intervention Studies

CASP Chacklist for RCTs

 Tools

JBI checklist for

Quasi
ROBINS-I Eksperimental
Studies
 ROBINS-I
Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare
evaluation, but their results may be biased.

A tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of
interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of
individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic
reviews that include non-randomised studies.
 ROBINS-I
A tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions.

Pre At Post
Intervention Intervention Intervention
Bias Bias Bias
ROBINS-I TOOL
 CONCLUSION
Based on answers to the signalling questions, judgements for each
bias domain, and for overall risk of bias, can be ‘Low’, ‘Moderate’,
‘Serious’ or ‘Critical’ risk of bias.
 JBI

JBI checklist
for Quasi
Eksperimental
Studies
1. Is it clear in the study what is the ‘cause’ and what is the ‘effect’ (i.e. there is
no confusion about which variable comes first)?
2. Were the participants included in any comparisons similar?
3. Were the participants included in any comparisons receiving similar
treatment/care, other than the exposure or intervention of interest?
4. Was there a control group?
5. Were there multiple measurements of the outcome both pre and post the
intervention/exposure?
6. Was follow up complete and if not, were differences between groups in
terms of their follow up adequately described and analyzed?
7. Were the outcomes of participants included in any comparisons measured in
the same way?
8. Were outcomes measured in a reliable way?
9. Was appropriate statistical analysis used?