- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Flawed risk of bias undertaken
- 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? | No |
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | Yes |