- Framework of problems / Transparent
- Multiplicity of outcomes and lack of pre-specification for outcome reporting
- Selective reporting of outcomes in randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of cystic fibrosis
Ref ID | 129 |
First Author | K. Dwan |
Journal | BMJ OPEN |
Year Of Publishing | 2013 |
URL | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/3/6/e002709.full.pdf |
Keywords |
Cochrane Protocols Multiplicity Pulmonology Otolaryngology |
Problem(s) |
Multiplicity of outcomes and lack of pre-specification for outcome reporting Undocumented or unjustified deviations to the review protocol |
Number of systematic reviews included | 46 |
Summary of Findings | From the initial 46 identified systematic reviews, 39% (18/46) had a discrepancy in outcomes between a protocol and a full review. Between a review protocol and a full review, five (28%) listed all changes, two (11%) listed some changes and 11 reviews (61%) did not mention any change in outcomes. From comparison of the 37 included systematic reviews that were assessed for outcome reporting bias in trials, outcome reporting bias for primary outcomes was suspected in at least one trial in 86% of reviews. |
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | Not Applicable |
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | No |