- 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 |
Protocols Multiplicity Pre-specification General medical |
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 |