%0 Meta-Analysis
%T Assessing risk of bias in the meta-analysis of round 1 of the Health Care Innovation Awards.
%A Smith KW
%A Freeman NLB
%A Bir A
%J Syst Rev
%V 13
%N 1
%D 2024 01 22
%M 38254172
%F 3.136
%R 10.1186/s13643-023-02409-9
%X Systematic reviews of observational studies can be affected by biases that lead to under- or over-estimates of true intervention effects. Several tools have been reported in the literature that attempt to characterize potential bias. Our objective in this study was to determine the extent to which study-specific bias may have influenced intervention impacts on total costs of care (TCOC) in round 1 of the Health Care Innovation Awards.<BR>We reviewed 82 statistical evaluations of innovation impacts on Medicare TCOC. We developed five risk-of-bias measures and assessed their influence on TCOC impacts using meta-regression.<BR>The majority of evaluations used propensity score matching to create their comparison groups. One third of the non-randomized interventions were judged to have some risk of biased effects due largely to the way they recruited their treatment groups, and 35% had some degree of covariate imbalance remaining after propensity score adjustments. However, in the multivariable analysis of TCOC effects, none of the bias threats we examined (comparison group construction method, risk of bias, or degree of covariate imbalance) had a major impact on the magnitude of HCIA1 innovation effects. Evaluations using propensity score weighting produced larger but imprecise savings effects compared to propensity score matching.<BR>Our results suggest that it is unlikely that HCIA1 TCOC effect sizes were systematically affected by the types of bias we considered. Assessing the risk of bias based on specific study design features is likely to be more useful for identifying problematic characteristics than the subjective quality ratings used by existing risk tools.