| 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 |
• General medical • Abstract / summary • Cochrane • Outcomes |
| Problem(s) |
• Failure to define clinically meaningful outcomes |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Canada |
| Aim | To assess the extent to which the most patient important outcomes are reported in the full texts and abstracts of 96 Cochrane and 94 non-Cochrane reviews published in 2010 and to examine the extent to which absolute effects are reported for patient important outcomes. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| 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. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 190 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 2278 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |