| Ref ID | 539 |
| First Author | J. J. Kirkham |
| Journal | PLOS ONE |
| Year Of Publishing | 2010 |
| URL | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842442/pdf/pone.0009810.pdf |
| Keywords |
• General medical • Protocols • Cochrane • Multiplicity |
| Problem(s) |
• Failure to define clinically meaningful outcomes • Undocumented or unjustified deviations to the review protocol • Multiplicity of outcomes and lack of pre-specification for outcome reporting |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Meta-epidemiological analysis |
| First Author Country | United Kingdom |
| Aim | To assess discrepancies between primary outcomes listed in Cochrane review protocols and those in the subsequent completed reviews published in consecutive issues on the Cochrane Library between 2006 and 2007. |
| Level of Investigation | Analytical |
| Summary of Findings | 22% of the 297 included protocol/review pairings contained a discrepancy in at least one outcome measure, of which 75% were attributable to changes in the primary outcome measure. Where lead authors could recall a reason for the discrepancy in the primary outcome, 29% of these reviews made changes after knowledge of the results from individual trials. Only 6% of reviews with an outcome discrepancy described the reason for the change in the review. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 297 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 309 |
| Treatment impacted | Yes |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Yes |
| Interpretation impacted description | Outcomes that were promoted in the review were more likely to be significant than if there was no discrepancy (relative risk 1.66 95% CI (1.10, 2.49), p = 0.02). |