Outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews related to wound care: An investigation into prespecification

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 Cochrane
Multiplicity
Pre-specification
Nursing
Problem(s) Multiplicity of outcomes and lack of pre-specification for outcome reporting
Number of systematic reviews included 106
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.
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? Yes