| Ref ID | 547 |
| First Author | S. Donegan |
| Journal | PLOS ONE |
| Year Of Publishing | 2015 |
| URL | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26029923/ |
| Keywords |
• Statistical • Cochrane • General medical • Pre-specification • Subgroup • Multiplicity |
| Problem(s) |
• Multiplicity of outcomes and lack of pre-specification for outcome reporting • Unplanned or unjustified subgroup or sensitivity analyses |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | United Kingdom |
| Aim | To assess how well interaction analyses were designed, applied, interpreted, and reported for the most recent review from each Cochrane review group in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in 2013 |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | The type of analysis planned and the type subsequently applied (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analysis) was discrepant in 46% of reviews. No review reported how or why each covariate had been chosen; 42% of reviews did state each covariate a priori in the protocol but no review identified each post-hoc covariate as such. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 52 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 52 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |