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