| Ref ID | 496 |
| First Author | V. Smith |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2015 |
| URL | https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(14)00398-9/pdf |
| Keywords |
• Pre-specification • General medical • Cochrane • Multiplicity |
| Problem(s) |
• Multiplicity of outcomes and lack of pre-specification for outcome reporting • Failure to define clinically meaningful outcomes |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Ireland |
| Aim | To assess the outcomes used in Cochrane Reviews divided by Cochrane Review Group, published in full for the first time in 2007 and 2011 |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | A total of 6,127 specified outcomes were listed in the methods sections of the included reviews. 37% of included reviews specified outcomes that were not reported. For non-reported specified outcomes, 23% were not reported because of non-measurement in the included studies or insufficient data to report. However, for 14% of non-reported outcomes, no reason could be identified in the text of the review for why the outcome was not reported. Of the new reviews with studies from 2011 which had included studies (i.e., were not empty reviews), 31% had a ‘‘summary of findings’’ table. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 788 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 788 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |