| Ref ID | 92 |
| First Author | Z. Liu |
| Journal | WOUND REPAIR & REGENERATION |
| Year Of Publishing | 2017 |
| URL | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/wrr.12519?download=true |
| Keywords |
• Nursing • Pre-specification • 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 | United Kingdom |
| Aim | To assess the adequacy and specification of outcomes used in Cochrane wounds systematic reviews that had provided a protocol up to 2014 using a five-element framework of key outcome components: outcome domain, specific measurement, specific metric, method of aggregation, and time points. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | 106 protocols were included for systematic reviews with 126 outcome domains. Outcomes were frequently poorly prespecified. Method of aggregation was the most poorly specified element (76–100% unclear), and when specified, it was usually a “percentage/proportion.” Time points and metric were very poorly specified, except for the domain of wound healing. Primary outcomes tended to be more completely specified than secondary outcomes. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 106 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 106 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |