- Framework of problems / Transparent
- Multiplicity of outcomes and lack of pre-specification for outcome reporting
- The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews
Ref ID | 471 |
First Author | J. J. Kirkham |
Journal | BMJ |
Year Of Publishing | 2010 |
URL | https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/340/bmj.c365.full.pdf |
Keywords |
Cochrane Multiplicity Missing data General medical |
Problem(s) |
Multiplicity of outcomes and lack of pre-specification for outcome reporting Failure to address missing outcome data in analyses Weaknesses identified in some Cochrane reviews |
Number of systematic reviews included | 283 |
Summary of Findings | 55% of the included reviews did not include full data for the review primary outcome of interest from all eligible trials. 34% of included reviews contained at least one trial with high suspicion of outcome reporting bias for the review primary outcome. In a sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome of interest, the treatment effect estimate was reduced by 20% or more in 23% of reviews. Of the meta-analyses with a statistically significant result 19% became non-significant after adjustment for outcome reporting bias and 26% would have overestimated the treatment effect by 20% or more. |
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | Yes |
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | Yes |