|Study design(s) targeted by the tool
|Additional details on designs
|Cohort studies of the effects of interventions
|Link to the tool
|Get the ROBINS-I tool (Google doc)
|Sterne JA, Hernan MA, Reeves BC, Savovic J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016;355
|Get the ROBINS-I guidance (Google doc)
None known – please contact us if you are aware of any training that should be listed here
None known – please contact us if you are aware of any translations that should be listed here.
|Record last updated
Related tools and Publications
Jeyaraman MM, Robson RC, Copstein L, Al-Yousif N, Pollock M, Xia J, et al. Customized guidance/training improved the psychometric properties of methodologically rigorous risk of bias instruments for non-randomized studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;136:157-67.
Zhang Y, Huang L, Wang D, Ren P, Hong Q, Kang D. The ROBINS-I and the NOS had similar reliability but differed in applicability: A random sampling observational studies of systematic reviews/meta-analysis. J Evid Based Med. 2021;14(2):112-22.
Minozzi S, Cinquini M, Gianola S, Castellini G, Gerardi C, Banzi R. Risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions showed low inter-rater reliability and challenges in its application. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;112:28-35.
Losilla JM, Oliveras I, Marin-Garcia JA, Vives J. Three risk of bias tools lead to opposite conclusions in observational research synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;101:61-72.
None known – please contact us if you are aware of any publications that should be listed here
|Focuses on risk of bias, or makes a distinction between items that assess risk of bias and other aspects of study quality
|Offers a method to reach either a domain specific or overall assessment of risk of bias
|Used in at least one review that none of the tool authors were co-authors on or is an update to a previously recommended LATITUDES key tool
|Tool development involving a range of stakeholders from different disciplines (e.g. methodologists, statisticians, clinicians)
|Avoids recommending use of summary numerical quality scores