- Framework of problems / Transparent
- Multiplicity of outcomes and lack of pre-specification for outcome reporting
- A third of systematic reviews changed or did not specify the primary outcome: a PROSPERO register study
| Ref ID | 364 |
| First Author | A. C. Tricco |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2016 |
| URL | https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(16)30076-2/fulltext |
| Keywords |
• General medical • Pre-specification • Multiplicity • Protocols |
| Problem(s) |
• Multiplicity of outcomes and lack of pre-specification for outcome reporting |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 96 |
| Summary of Findings | A discrepancy in the primary outcome occurred in 32% of the included reviews and 39% of the reviews did not explicitly specify a primary outcome(s); 6% of the primary outcomes were omitted. There was no evidence of a significant increased risk of adding/upgrading or decreased risk of downgrading an outcome when the meta-analysis result was favourable and statistically significant. There was no evidence of significant increased risk of adding/upgrading or decreased risk of downgrading an outcome when the conclusion was positive. |
| Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | No |
| Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | Yes |