| Ref ID | 512 |
| First Author | M. J. Page |
| Journal | SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS |
| Year Of Publishing | 2016 |
| URL | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4938957/pdf/13643_2016_Article_289.pdf |
| Keywords |
• General medical • Cochrane • Risk of bias |
| Problem(s) |
• Flawed risk of bias undertaken • Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | United Kingdom |
| Aim | To evaluate assessments of selective reporting using the Cochrane risk of bias tool in a cross-section of Cochrane reviews from issues 1-8, 2015, pertaining to 8434 studies in 586 reviews. A random selection of 100 reviews with at least one trial rated at high risk of outcome non-reporting bias (non-/partial reporting of an outcome on the basis of its results) were assessed. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | Review authors often specified in the risk of bias tables the study outcomes that were not reported (84 % of studies) but less frequently specified the outcomes that were partially reported (61 % of studies). At least one study was rated at high risk of outcome non-reporting bias in 31% of reviews. In the random sample of these reviews, only 30% incorporated this information when interpreting results, by acknowledging that the synthesis of an outcome was missing data that were not/partially reported. Many reasons provided by review authors for high-risk judgements were too vague in order to allow readers to understand which specific outcomes should be interpreted with caution. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 100 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 586 |