- Framework of problems / Objective
- Failure to define clinically meaningful outcomes
- Authors seldom report the most patient-important outcomes and absolute effect measures in systematic review abstracts
| Ref ID | 358 |
| First Author | A. Agarwal |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2017 |
| URL | https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(16)30358-4/fulltext |
| Keywords |
Cochrane Abstract / summary General medical Outcomes |
| Problem(s) |
Failure to define clinically meaningful outcomes |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 190 |
| Summary of Findings | 77.5% of relative measures were reported in abstracts for outcomes of benefit, whereas only 22.5% absolute measures were reported. Similarly, for outcomes of harm, 87.2% of relative measures were provided in abstracts, compared with only 12.8% of absolute measures. 9.5% of abstracts reported both absolute and relative measures for outcomes of benefit, whereas only 1.1% of abstracts reported both measures for outcomes of harm. Results were similar between Cochrane and non-Cochrane 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 |