- Framework of problems / Transparent
- Multiplicity of outcomes and lack of pre-specification for outcome reporting
- Statistical multiplicity in systematic reviews of anaesthesia interventions: a quantification and comparison between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews
Ref ID | 543 |
First Author | G. Imberger |
Journal | PLOS ONE |
Year Of Publishing | 2011 |
URL | https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0028422 |
Keywords |
Cochrane Multiplicity Pain Subgroup |
Problem(s) |
Unplanned or unjustified subgroup or sensitivity analyses Multiplicity of outcomes and lack of pre-specification for outcome reporting |
Number of systematic reviews included | 86 |
Summary of Findings | The median number of tests done in each included systematic review was 12 in Cochrane reviews and 8 in non-Cochrane reviews. Primary outcomes were clearly defined in 63% (27/43) of the Cochrane reviews and 51% of the non-Cochrane reviews. The proportion that used an assessment of risk of bias as a reason for doing extra analyses was 42% in Cochrane and 28% in non-Cochrane reviews. The issue of multiplicity was addressed in 6% of all the reviews. |
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | Not Applicable |
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | Yes |