Outcomes in cochrane systematic reviews addressing four common eye conditions: An evaluation of completeness and comparability

PLoS ONE

Volumn 9, Issue 10, 2014, Pages

  Saldanha, Ian J ^a   Dickersin, Kay ^a   Wang, Xue ^a   Li, Tianjing ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGE RELATED MACULAR DEGENERATION; ARTICLE; CATARACT; COCHRANE LIBRARY; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; DIABETIC RETINOPATHY; DISEASE COURSE; EYE DISEASE; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; QUALITY OF LIFE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; VISUAL ACUITY; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); COOPERATION; LITERATURE; ORGANIZATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PROCEDURES;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; EYE DISEASES; HUMANS; ORGANIZATIONS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84908032839     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109400     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. nd edition. Wiley. Hoboken, NJ.
2. Institute of Medicine (2011) Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. Available: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Finding-What-Works-in-Health-Care-Standards-for-Systematic-Reviews.aspx. Accessed 2014 September 12.
3. Campbell MJ, Julious SA, Altman DG (1995) Estimating sample sizes for binary, ordered categorical, and continuous outcomes in two group comparisons. BMJ 311(7013): 1145-1148.
4. Bender R, Bunce C, Clarke M, Gates S, Lange S, et al. (2008) Attention should be given to multiplicity issues in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 61(9): 857-865.
5. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Forbes A (2013) Many scenarios exist for selective inclusion and reporting of results in randomized trials and systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 66(5): 524-537.
6. Higgins JPTGreen S, (editors) (2011) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. Available: www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed 2014 September 12.
7. Chandler J, Churchill R, Higgins J, Tovey D (2012) Methodological standards for the conduct of new Cochrane Intervention Reviews. Version 2.2. 17, December 2012. Available: http://www.editorial-unit.cochrane.org/sites/editorial-unit.cochrane.org/files/uploads/MECIR-conduct-standards%202.2%2017122012.pdf. Accessed 2014 September 12.
8. Zarin DA, Tse T, Williams RJ, Califf RM, Ide NC (2011) The ClinicalTrials.gov results database-update and key issues. N Engl J Med 364(9): 852-860.
9. Singh S, Loke YK, Enright PL, Furberg CD (2011) Mortality associated with tiotropium mist inhaler in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 14; 342:d3215. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d3215
10. Jefferson T, Jones MA, Doshi P, Del Mar CB, Heneghan CJ, et al. (2012) Neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing and treating influenza in healthy adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1):CD008965.
11. Goodman SN (1989) Meta-analysis and evidence. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2666026Control Clin Trials 10(2): 188-204.
12. Robinson KA, Saldanha IJ, Mckoy NA (2011) Development of a framework to identify research gaps from systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 64(12): 1325-1330.
13. National Eye Institute (2010) Statistics and Data Available: http://www.nei.nih.gov/eyedata. Accessed 2014 September 12.
14. Vedula SS, Bero L, Scherer RW, Dickersin K (2009) Outcome reporting in industry-sponsored trials of gabapentin for off-label use. N Engl J Med 361(20): 1963-1971.
15. Dwan K, Altman DG, Cresswell L, Blundell M, Gamble CL, et al. (2011) Comparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Issue 1. Art. No.: MR000031. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000031.pub2
16. Stewart L, Moher D, Shekelle P (2012) Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense. Syst Rev 1: 7. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-7
17. Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, Gamble C, Dodd S, et al. (2010) The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ 340: c365. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c365
18. Mathieu S, Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Ravaud P (2009) Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 302(9): 977-984.
19. Wieseler B, Kerekes MF, Vervolgyi V, Kohlepp P, McGauran N, et al. (2012) Impact of document type on reporting quality of clinical drug trials: a comparison registry reports, clinical study reports, and journal publications. BMJ 344 d8141 doi: 10.1136/bmj.d8141
20. Wieseler B, Wolfram N, McGauran N, Kerekes MF, Vervolgyi V, et al. (2013) Completeness of reporting of patient-relevant clinical trial outcomes: comparison of unpublished clinical study reports with publicly available data. PLOS Med 10(10) e1001526. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001526
21. EQUATOR Network (2014) Reporting Guidelines under development. Available: http://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/#99. Accessed 2014 September 12.
22. Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JP (2005) Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ 331(7521): 897-900.
23. Li T, Puhan M, Vedula SS, Singh S, Dickersin K for the Ad Hoc Network Meta-analysis Methods Meeting Working Group (2011) Network meta-analysis - highly attractive and more methodological research is needed. BMC Medicine 9(1): 79. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-9-79
24. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A (1981) Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 47(1): 207-214.
25. Tugwell P, Boers M, Brooks P, Simon LS, Strand V (2007) OMERACT: An international initiative to improve outcome measures in rheumatology. Trials 8: 38.
26. Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Farrar JT, Haythornthwaite JA, Jensen MP, et al. (2005) Core outcome measures for chronic pain trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 113(1-2): 9-19.
27. COMET Initiative (2014) Overview. Available: http://www.comet-initiative.org/about/overview. Accessed 2014 September 12.
28. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Devane D, et al. (2012) Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials 13(132). doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-132
29. Thornley B, Adams C (1998) Content and quality of 2000 controlled trials in schizophrenia over 50 years. BMJ 317(7167): 1181-1184.
30. Salek S (1999) Compendium of Quality of Life Instruments. Wiley. ISBN: 0-471-98145-1.
31. Clarke M (2007) Standardising outcomes for clinical trials and systematic reviews. Trials 8: 39.
32. Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, Ghersi D, Moher D, et al. (2012) The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Sys Rev 1: 2. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-2
33. Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, Ghersi D, Moher D, et al. (2013) PROSPERO at one year: an evaluation of its utility. Sys Rev 2: 4. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-2-4
34. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, Klassen TP, Tugwell P, et al. (1998) Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA 280(3): 278-280.
35. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG (2007) Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 4(3): e78.
36. Kirkham JJ, Altman DG, Williamson PR (2010) Bias due to changes in prespecified outcomes during the systematic review process. PLoS One 5(3): e9810. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009810
37. Chan AW, Altman D (2005) Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomized trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors. BMJ 330(7494):753.
38. Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG (2004) Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 291(20): 2457-2465.