| Ref ID | 571 |
| First Author | I. J. Saldanha |
| Journal | PLOS ONE |
| Year Of Publishing | 2014 |
| URL | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25329377/ |
| Keywords |
• Ophthalmology • Pre-specification • Multiplicity • Cochrane |
| Problem(s) |
• Multiplicity of outcomes and lack of pre-specification for outcome reporting |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | United States |
| Aim | To assess whether Cochrane reviews completely prespecified relevant outcomes for common eye conditions according to the outcome's: 1) domain; 2) specific measurement; 3) specific metric; 4) method of aggregation; 5) time points |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | Five key outcome domains appeared 145 times across the 57 included Cochrane review protocols. Only 15/145 instances (10.3%) were completely specified (where all five elements of quality-of-life, visual acuity, intraocular pressure, disease progression, and contrast sensitivity). On average, the most common elements to be pre-specified were domain and time points. Primary outcomes were more completely specified than non-primary (median = four versus two elements). Quality-of-life was least completely specified (median = one element). Due to largely incomplete outcome pre-specification, conclusive assessment of comparability in outcome usage across the various protocols per condition was not possible. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 57 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 57 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |