- Framework of problems / Objective
- Failure to define clinically meaningful outcomes
- Can a core outcome set improve the quality of systematic reviews?–a survey of the Co-ordinating Editors of Cochrane Review Groups
| Ref ID | 9 |
| First Author | J. J. Kirkham |
| Journal | TRIALS |
| Year Of Publishing | 2013 |
| URL | https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6215-14-21 |
| Keywords |
Cochrane Missing data General medical |
| Problem(s) |
Failure to address missing outcome data in analyses Failure to define clinically meaningful outcomes |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 143 |
| Summary of Findings | In one fifth (n=26 (18%)) of the published 283 reviews in the total sample, more than 50% of the patient data for the primary outcome was missing. Responses to the survey were received from 90% of Co-ordinating Editors. Thirty-six percent of Cochrane Review Group's have a centralized policy regarding which outcomes to include in the Summary of Findings table and 73% of Co-ordinating Editors thought that a Core Outcome Set for effectiveness trials should be used routinely for a Summary of Findings table. |
| 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? | No |