A third of systematic reviews changed or did not specify the primary outcome: a PROSPERO register study

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 79, Issue , 2016, Pages 46-54

  Tricco, Andrea C ^a,b   Cogo, Elise ^a   Page, Matthew J ^c   Polisena, Julie ^d,e   Booth, Alison ^f   Dwan, Kerry ^g   MacDonald, Heather ^a   Clifford, Tammy J ^d   Stewart, Lesley A ^f   Straus, Sharon E ^a,b   Moher, David ^h  

^a ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^d CANADIAN AGENCY FOR DRUGS AND TECHNOLOGIES IN HEALTH   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^f UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^g UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^h OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

Author keywords

Bias; Methodology; Outcome reporting bias; Quality; Reporting; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REGISTER; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; RISK FACTOR; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); EPIDEMIOLOGY; LITERATURE; PROCEDURES; RISK; STATISTICAL BIAS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); COHORT STUDIES; EPIDEMIOLOGIC RESEARCH DESIGN; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); REGISTRIES; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; RISK;

EID: 85006412382     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.03.025     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. [1] Higgins, J., Green, S., (eds.) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.1.0, 2011, The Cochrane Collaboration Available at http://handbook.cochrane.org.
2. [2] Institute of Medicine, 2011, Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
3. [3] Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P.C., Ioannidis, J.P., et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ, 339, 2009, b2700.
4. [4] Dwan, K., Kirkham, J.J., Williamson, P.R., Gamble, C., Selective reporting of outcomes in randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of cystic fibrosis. BMJ Open, 3(6), 2013 e002709.
5. [5] Kirkham, J.J., Altman, D.G., Williamson, P.R., Bias due to changes in specified outcomes during the systematic review process. PLoS One, 5, 2010, e9810.
6. [6] Silagy, C.A., Middleton, P., Hopewell, S., Publishing protocols of systematic reviews: comparing what was done to what was planned. JAMA 287 (2002), 2831–2834.
7. [7] Parmelli, E., Liberati, A., D'Amico, R., Reporting of outcomes in systematic reviews: comparison of protocols and published systematic reviews. 2007, 15th Cochrane Colloquium, Sao Paulo.
8. [8] Tricco, A.C., Tetzlaff, J., Sampson, M., Fergusson, D., Cogo, E., Horsley, T., et al. Few systematic reviews exist documenting the extent of bias: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 61 (2008), 422–434.
9. [9] Page, M.J., McKenzie, J.E., Kirkham, J., Dwan, K., Kramer, S., Green, S., et al. Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 10, 2014, MR000035.
10. [10] PROSPERO. York, England: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Univeristy of York; [updated November 2015]. Available at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/.
11. [11] Moher, D., Tetzlaff, J., Tricco, A.C., Sampson, M., Altman, D.G., Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PloS Med, 4(3), 2007, e78.
12. [12] Moher, D., Dulberg, C.S., Wells, G.A., Statistical power, sample size, and their reporting in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 272 (1994), 122–124.
13. [13] Tricco, A.C., Tetzlaff, J., Pham, B., Brehaut, J., Moher, D., Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane reviews were twice as likely to have positive conclusion statements: cross-sectional study. J Clin Epidemiol 62 (2009), 380–386.e1.
14. [14] Shea, B.J., Hamel, C., Wells, G.A., Bouter, L.M., Kristjansson, E., Grimshaw, J., et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 62 (2009), 1013–1020.
15. [15] Mesgarpour, B., Griebler, U., Glechner, A., Kien, C., Strobelberger, M., Van Noord, M.G., et al. Extended-release opioids in the management of cancer pain: a systematic review of efficacy and safety. Eur J Pain 18 (2014), 605–616.
16. [16] Bastian, H., Glasziou, P., Chalmers, I., Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up?. PloS Med, 7(9), 2010, e1000326.