Source 1review2025MED
Toolkit/ROBINS-I
ROBINS-I
Taxonomy: Technique Branch / Method. Workflows sit above the mechanism and technique branches rather than replacing them.
Summary
the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized studies.
Usefulness & Problems
Why this is useful
ROBINS-I is used in this review to assess risk of bias in non-randomized studies. It is part of the review's methodological quality assessment workflow.; risk-of-bias assessment in non-randomized studies within evidence synthesis
Source:
ROBINS-I is used in this review to assess risk of bias in non-randomized studies. It is part of the review's methodological quality assessment workflow.
Source:
risk-of-bias assessment in non-randomized studies within evidence synthesis
Problem solved
It helps standardize bias assessment for non-randomized evidence included in the review.; provides a structured method to assess bias in non-randomized intervention studies
Source:
It helps standardize bias assessment for non-randomized evidence included in the review.
Source:
provides a structured method to assess bias in non-randomized intervention studies
Problem links
provides a structured method to assess bias in non-randomized intervention studies
LiteratureIt helps standardize bias assessment for non-randomized evidence included in the review.
Source:
It helps standardize bias assessment for non-randomized evidence included in the review.
Published Workflows
Objective: Systematically synthesize clinical evidence on TPS effects on cognition, motor function, mental health, and safety across neurological and psychiatric disorders.
Why it works: The review first identifies relevant studies across multiple databases, then applies independent study selection and data extraction before formal quality assessment, allowing outcome synthesis to be interpreted in light of study quality and bias.
literature searchstudy selectiondata extractionquality assessmentrisk-of-bias assessmentmeta-analysis
Stages
- 1.Literature search(in_silico_filter)
To identify the available TPS literature across databases before screening and synthesis.
Selection: Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, PsycINFO & PsycArticles, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for the period January 2013 to December 2024.
- 2.Study selection(decision_gate)
To narrow the search results to studies eligible for inclusion in the review.
Selection: Two independent reviewers conducted the study selection.
- 3.Data extraction and quality assessment(functional_characterization)
To collect outcome and safety data in a structured way and assess study quality before interpretation.
Selection: Two independent reviewers conducted the data extraction and quality assessment.
- 4.Risk-of-bias assessment by study design(counter_screen)
To evaluate internal validity using tools matched to study design before drawing conclusions about TPS effects.
Selection: RoB2 was used for randomized studies and ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies.
- 5.Outcome synthesis and interpretation(confirmatory_validation)
To summarize whether TPS appears promising while explicitly accounting for study limitations.
Selection: Included studies were synthesized for cognitive, motor, mental health, and safety outcomes.
Steps
- 1.Search multiple literature databases over a defined date range
Capture the available TPS evidence base across relevant bibliographic sources.
Broad retrieval must occur before any study selection, extraction, or quality assessment can be performed.
- 2.Use two independent reviewers for study selection
Determine which retrieved studies are eligible for inclusion.
Selection follows retrieval so that only eligible studies move into extraction and synthesis.
- 3.Use two independent reviewers for data extraction and quality assessment
Collect study outcomes and assess study quality in a structured manner.
Extraction and quality assessment require a finalized included-study set from the prior selection step.
- 4.Apply RoB 2 to randomized studies and ROBINS-I to non-randomized studiesrisk-of-bias assessment tools
Assess bias using a tool matched to study design.
Design-specific bias assessment is performed after studies are identified and extracted so that interpretation can be conditioned on study quality.
- 5.Synthesize efficacy and safety outcomes while accounting for study limitations
Generate a review-level conclusion about TPS effects and safety.
Synthesis comes after extraction and bias assessment so conclusions can be interpreted in the context of evidence quality.
Taxonomy & Function
Primary hierarchy
Technique Branch
Method: A concrete measurement method used to characterize an engineered system.
Mechanisms
risk-of-bias assessmentTechniques
Functional AssayTarget processes
No target processes tagged yet.
Implementation Constraints
cofactor dependency: cofactor requirement unknownencoding mode: genetically encodedimplementation constraint: context specific validationoperating role: sensor
The abstract only supports that non-randomized studies are required as inputs for ROBINS-I assessment.; applies to non-randomized studies
Independent follow-up evidence is still limited. Validation breadth across biological contexts is still narrow. Independent reuse still looks limited, so the evidence base may be fragile. No canonical validation observations are stored yet, so context-specific performance remains under-specified.
Validation
Cell-freeBacteriaMammalianMouseHumanTherapeuticIndep. Replication
Supporting Sources
Ranked Claims
Interpretation of TPS efficacy is limited by small sample sizes, lack of control groups, retrospective analyses, and heterogeneity of study protocols and measurements.
Standardized protocol procedures and larger sham-controlled trials are needed to better assess the potential of TPS.
The review used RoB 2 for randomized studies and ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies to assess risk of bias.
Across fifteen included studies, TPS showed positive effects on cognitive, motor, and mental health outcomes in a majority of studies and outcome parameters.
The review reports a high safety profile for TPS across the included neurological and psychiatric disorder studies.
Approval Evidence
1 source1 linked approval claimfirst-pass slug robins-i
the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized studies.
Source:
methodology usagesupports
The review used RoB 2 for randomized studies and ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies to assess risk of bias.
Source:
Comparisons
Source-backed strengths
the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized studies.
Compared with Langendorff perfused heart electrical recordings
ROBINS-I and Langendorff perfused heart electrical recordings address a similar problem space.
Shared frame: same top-level item type
Strengths here: looks easier to implement in practice.
Compared with native green gel system
ROBINS-I and native green gel system address a similar problem space.
Shared frame: same top-level item type
Strengths here: looks easier to implement in practice.
ROBINS-I and sub-picosecond pump-probe analysis of bacteriorhodopsin pigments address a similar problem space.
Shared frame: same top-level item type
Strengths here: looks easier to implement in practice.
Ranked Citations
- 1.