specify_result
Specify the one numerical result being assessed, with C4 accounts_for_deviations and B screening answers, to set the correct ROBINS-I question set and determine if domain scoring proceeds.
Instructions
Name the ONE numerical result being assessed, and settle C4. Required before any domain can be scored.
ROBINS-I assesses a single effect estimate, not a paper. A study reporting
three outcomes across two analyses yields six assessments; give each its own
result_id and run them separately.
accounts_for_deviations IS C4, and it is the highest-leverage input here:
it swaps domain 1's entire question set and algorithm, so it cannot be
deferred until domain 1 is reached.
'no_itt' — the analysis does NOT account for switches between the compared
strategies or other protocol deviations. It targets the effect
of assignment. Domain 1 variant A (baseline confounding only).
'yes_pp' — the analysis DOES account for them, by censoring, follow-up
partitioning, or a g-method. It targets the effect of sustained
receipt. Domain 1 variant B (baseline AND time-varying
confounding).
Judge this on what the ANALYSIS DOES, not on the label the authors give their
estimand. A paper whose protocol table says 'observational analogue of the
per-protocol effect' but which never censors at deviation is 'no_itt'. Getting
this wrong means answering five questions that do not apply.
result_assessed is A1: the estimate with its precision. outcome is A3.
result_location (A2) is where it appears and why it was chosen.
target_trial is C1-C3 as a dict of labelled strings — eligible participants,
intervention strategy, comparator strategy, and any note on the estimand.
information_sources is D1: what you actually read. An NI answer is only
defensible relative to what was searched.
b1/b2/b3 are the section B screening answers (Y/PY/PN/N). b1: was any
attempt made to control confounding in this result? b2 (asked only if b1 is
PN/N): is the potential for confounding great enough that an unadjusted result
should not be considered further? b3: is the outcome measurement method
unsuitable for the outcome it is meant to capture? Y/PY on b2 or b3 sends the
result straight to critical and no domain is scored.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| b1 | No | ||
| b2 | No | ||
| b3 | No | ||
| model | No | unspecified | |
| outcome | Yes | ||
| citation | No | ||
| document | No | ||
| result_id | Yes | ||
| review_id | No | default | |
| text_sha256 | Yes | ||
| target_trial | No | ||
| result_assessed | Yes | ||
| result_location | No | ||
| information_sources | No | ||
| accounts_for_deviations | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| outcome | No | ||
| citation | No | ||
| estimand | No | ||
| warnings | No | ||
| next_step | No | ||
| result_id | No | ||
| review_id | No | ||
| screening | No | ||
| text_sha256 | No | ||
| per_protocol | No | ||
| target_trial | No | ||
| domain1_variant | No | ||
| result_assessed | No | ||
| result_location | No | ||
| domain1_questions | No | ||
| information_sources | No | ||
| screening_terminated | No | ||
| prespecified_confounders | No |