Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

Risk-of-bias tools for causal inference studies using real-world data: a rapid scoping review

*Corresponding author for this work
  • Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
    ,
  • Spanish Network of Agencies for Assessing National Health System Technologies and Performance
    ,
  • docencia y atención especializada en epilepsia
Research Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Research
Peer-review

Open access

Publication Information

Output type

Research Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Research
Peer-review

Original language

English

Article number

112486

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (Volume 200)

Publication milestones

  • Published - 12/2026

Publication status

Published - 12/2026

ISSN

0895-4356

Publication IDs

  • Scopus: 105051649623
  • PubMed: 42669371

Abstract

Objectives This review aimed to identify and characterize tools designed, adapted, or validated to assess risk of bias (RoB) in causal real-world evidence, with a view to informing their potential use in evidence-informed decision-making. Study Design and Setting We conducted a rapid scoping review of records published from 2015 onwards. Eligible records included studies and documents describing tools explicitly developed for RWE or tools applicable to causal inference. Tool characteristics were extracted, and their items/domains were mapped across four stages of study generation and four core bias domains. Results Eleven tools oriented toward causal questions were included, most of which were designed primarily for primary studies. Qualitative or categorical judgments were more common than numerical scoring. Coverage of the stages of study generation was uneven: study design was the most frequently addressed stage, whereas results presentation was the least represented. The data quality stage was addressed by ten tools, although its coverage varied across instruments. Across core bias domains, no tool was concentrated in a single domain; most distributed items across several domains, although the relative emphasis placed on selection and confounding bias varied across instruments. A substantial number of items/domains could not be classified under the predefined core bias domains. Conclusion Available RoB tools differ substantially in their structure, methodological emphasis, and the way they operationalize bias across stages of study generation and core bias domains. These differences should be considered when interpreting and comparing assessments conducted with different tools. Plain Language Summary RWE uses information collected during routine healthcare to study whether healthcare interventions cause particular health outcomes. However, these studies may have problems in their design, data, or analysis that can lead to biased or misleading conclusions. Researchers use RoB tools to identify these potential problems and judge how trustworthy study results are. We reviewed 11 available tools that can be used to assess RoB in RWE with causality purpose. The tools differed considerably in what they assessed and how they evaluated potential bias. These differences should be considered when researchers and decision makers choose a tool or compare assessments made using different tools.