| Ref ID | 589 |
| First Author | J. Verbeek |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2017 |
| URL | https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(16)30762-4/fulltext |
| Keywords |
• Pre-specification • General medical • Cochrane • Multiplicity |
| 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 | Finland |
| Aim | To assess how outcomes were defined and used for inclusion of studies and how this compares with guidance on preventing outcome reporting bias in the last review of August 2016 from each Cochrane Review Group. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | 77% of reviews did not specify if and how the outcomes had been used for inclusion of studies in contrast to guidance. In the other 23%, practice ranged from outcomes not being used for inclusion at all to using both the primary and the secondary outcomes for inclusion or a detailed list of outcomes used for inclusion. |
| 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 |