| Ref ID | 593 |
| First Author | R. Meursinge Reynders |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2019 |
| URL | https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(19)30456-1/fulltext |
| Keywords |
• General medical • Cochrane • Author • Missing data |
| Problem(s) |
• Failure to address missing outcome data in analyses |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Survey/questionnaire of authors opinions/practices |
| First Author Country | The Netherlands |
| Aim | To assess the prevalence, reporting quality and need of contacting study authors by Cochrane reviewers to obtain additional information for all new Cochrane intervention reviews published between January 1, 2016 and January 31, 2017 |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | Cochrane reviewers contacted (73.4%) or had tried to contact authors (80.0%) frequently but reporting by Cochrane reviewers on procedures for contacting authors and their outcomes was poor. Most eligible studies in the reviews were poorly reported, but few reviewers 21.2% (65/306) reported that they had contacted these studies. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 319 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 846 |
| Treatment impacted | Yes |
| Treatment impacted description | The survey identified changes in key outcomes of reviews as a consequence of contacting of authors for: (1) the risk of bias scores, (2) the GRADE scores, (3) the summary primary or secondary outcomes, and (4) the summary effect size of the primary outcome |
| Interpretation impacted | Yes |
| Interpretation impacted description | The prevalence of reviews in which the summary effect size of the primary outcome was modified as a result of the information obtained from the contacted studies was 24.6% ((15/61) 95% CI: 14.5% - 37.3%) |