Rethinking the assessment of risk of bias due to selective reporting: a cross-sectional study

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 Cochrane
Risk of bias
General medical
Problem(s) Flawed risk of bias undertaken
Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review
Number of systematic reviews included 100
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.
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