Selective reporting bias of harm outcomes within studies: Findings from a cohort of systematic reviews

BMJ (Online)

Volumn 349, Issue , 2014, Pages

  Saini, Pooja ^a   Loke, Yoon K ^b   Gamble, Carrol ^a   Altman, Douglas G ^c   Williamson, Paula R ^a   Kirkham, Jamie J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COCHRANE LIBRARY; COHORT ANALYSIS; DATA ANALYSIS; INFORMATION PROCESSING BIAS; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; MEDICAL RESEARCH; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); ADVERSE DRUG REACTION; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; PUBLISHING; SELECTION BIAS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

COHORT STUDIES; DATA COLLECTION; DRUG-RELATED SIDE EFFECTS AND ADVERSE REACTIONS; HUMANS; OUTCOME AND PROCESS ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PUBLISHING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; SELECTION BIAS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84912099186     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: 17561833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g6501     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. Smyth R, Kirkham JJ, Jacoby A, Altman DG, Gamble C, Williamson PR. Frequency and reasons for outcome reporting bias in clinical trials: interviews with trialists. BMJ 2011;342:c7153.
2. Hutton JL, Williamson PR. Bias in meta-analysis due to outcome variable selection within studies. Appl Stat 2000;49:359-70.
3. Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, Gamble C, Dodd S, Smyth R, et al. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ 2010;340:c365.
4. Chan A-W, Krleza-Jeric K, Schmid I, Altman DG. Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CMAJ 2004;171:735-40.
5. Jonsson U, Alaie I, Parling T, Arnberg FK. Reporting of harms in randomized controlled trials of psychological interventions for mental and behavioural disorders: a review of current practice. Contemp Clin Trials 2014;38:1-8.
6. Hopewell S, Wolfenden L, Clarke M. Reporting of adverse events in systematic reviews can be improved: survey results. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:597-602.
7. Papanikolaou PN, Ioannidis JPA. Availability of large-scale evidence on specific harms from systematic reviews of randomized trials. Am J Med 2004;117:582-9.
8. Golder S, Loke Y, Zorzela L. Some improvements are apparent in identifying adverse effects in systematic reviews from 1994 to 2011. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:253-60.
9. Zorzela L, Golder S, Liu Y, Pilkington K, Hartling L, Joffe A, et al. Quality of reporting in systematic reviews of adverse events: systematic review. BMJ 2014;348:f7668.
10. Golder S, Loke YK, Zorzela L. Comparison of search strategies in systematic reviews of adverse effects to other systematic reviews. Health Info Libr J 2014;31:92-105.
11. Ioannidis JP, Evans SJ, Gotzsche PC, O'Neill RT, Altman DG, Schulz K, et al. Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med 2004;141:781-8.
12. Von Elm E, Altman D, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med 2007;147:573-7.
13. Hodkinson A, Kirkham JJ, Tudur-Smith C, Gamble C. Reporting of harms data in RCTs: a systematic review of empirical assessments against the CONSORT harms extension. BMJ Open 2013;3:e003436.
14. Hopewell S, Altman D, Moher D, Schulz KF. Endorsement of the CONSORT statement by high impact factor medical journals: a survey of journal editors and journal 'Instructions to Authors'. Trials 2008;9:20.
15. Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www. cochrane-handbook.org.
16. Zorzela L, Golder S, Liu Y, Pilkington K, Hartling L, Joffe A, et al. Quality of reporting in systematic reviews of adverse events: systematic review. BMJ 2014;348:f7668.
17. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Montori V, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidenced publication bias. J Clin Epidem 2011;64:1277-82.