| Ref ID | 130 |
| First Author | K. Shah |
| Journal | BMJ OPEN |
| Year Of Publishing | 2020 |
| URL | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7076244/pdf/bmjopen-2019-032497.pdf |
| Keywords |
• Cochrane • Multiplicity • General medical • Protocols • Pre-specification |
| Problem(s) |
• Undocumented or unjustified deviations to the review protocol • Multiplicity of outcomes and lack of pre-specification for outcome reporting |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Canada |
| Aim | To assess the presence of discrepancies in outcome reporting between protocol and published studies including inclusions of new outcomes, omission of prespecified outcomes, upgrade and downgrade of secondary and primary outcomes, and changes in definitions of prespecified outcomes in a sample of Cochrane reviews published between May 2007 and August 2014. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | Of the 350 included Cochrane reviews, 150 (43%) review and protocol pairings contained discrepancies in outcome reporting. When reviews were further scrutinised, 23% (35 of 150) of reviews with discrepancies in outcome reporting contained a high risk of outcome reporting bias, with changes being made after knowledge of results from individual trials. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 350 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 3197 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |