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