| 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 |
• General medical • Missing data • Cochrane |
| Problem(s) |
• Failure to define clinically meaningful outcomes • Failure to address missing outcome data in analyses |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | United Kingdom |
| Aim | To assess the amount of missing patient data for primary outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews, and survey the Co-ordinating Editors of Cochrane Review Groups on issues related to the standardization of outcomes in their Cochrane Review Group's reviews. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| 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. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 143 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 283 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |