- Framework of problems / Transparent
- Multiplicity of outcomes and lack of pre-specification for outcome reporting
- Outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews addressing four common eye conditions: an evaluation of completeness and comparability
Ref ID | 571 |
First Author | I. J. Saldanha |
Journal | PLOS ONE |
Year Of Publishing | 2014 |
URL | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25329377/ |
Keywords |
Cochrane Multiplicity Pre-specification Ophthalmology |
Problem(s) |
Multiplicity of outcomes and lack of pre-specification for outcome reporting |
Number of systematic reviews included | 57 |
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. |
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 |