A Review of Risk of Bias Assessments Within Literature Reviews and Meta‐Analyses Published in Behavior‐Analytic Journals

ABSTRACT Systematic literature reviews and meta‐analyses that follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines are commonly published within behavior‐analytic literature. One PRISMA guideline involves conducting a risk of bias assessment. Given the prevalence of PRISMA reviews in behavior‐analytic literature, evaluating how often this type of assessment is included within reviews may be useful. The purpose of this review was to identify the inclusion of risk of bias assessments as outlined by PRISMA in systematic literature reviews and meta‐analyses published within behavior‐analytic journals. Articles published between March 29, 2021, and March 31, 2026, were evaluated to assess the inclusion of this assessment since the most recent PRISMA guidelines published on March 29, 2021. For articles that included a risk of bias assessment, the quality of the assessment was also evaluated. Eighty articles met inclusion for this review and six included a risk of bias assessment. Across those six articles, quality scores ranged from 6/10 (partially aligned) to 8/10 (aligned), with an average score of 7 (aligned). These findings may help ensure that systematic reviews using PRISMA guidelines are conducted with consistency and quality. Future directions and implications of these results are discussed.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Behavioral Interventions
Published
2026-10-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.70152
Primary Topic
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Review of Risk of Bias Assessments Within Literature Reviews and Meta‐Analyses Published in Behavior‐Analytic Journals

Angela Fuhrmann‐Knowles, Adriana (Adie) Anderson, Danielle Cohen
Behavioral Interventions
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
article

A Review of Risk of Bias Assessments Within Literature Reviews and Meta‐Analyses Published in Behavior‐Analytic Journals

Angela Fuhrmann‐Knowles, Adriana (Adie) Anderson, Danielle Cohen
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT Systematic literature reviews and meta‐analyses that follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines are commonly published within behavior‐analytic literature. One PRISMA guideline involves conducting a risk of bias assessment. Given the prevalence of PRISMA reviews in behavior‐analytic literature, evaluating how often this type of assessment is included within reviews may be useful. The purpose of this review was to identify the inclusion of risk of bias assessments as outlined by PRISMA in systematic literature reviews and meta‐analyses published within behavior‐analytic journals. Articles published between March 29, 2021, and March 31, 2026, were evaluated to assess the inclusion of this assessment since the most recent PRISMA guidelines published on March 29, 2021. For articles that included a risk of bias assessment, the quality of the assessment was also evaluated. Eighty articles met inclusion for this review and six included a risk of bias assessment. Across those six articles, quality scores ranged from 6/10 (partially aligned) to 8/10 (aligned), with an average score of 7 (aligned). These findings may help ensure that systematic reviews using PRISMA guidelines are conducted with consistency and quality. Future directions and implications of these results are discussed.

Behavioral InterventionsVol. 41(4)
Endicott College (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.