Authors seldom report the most patient-important outcomes and absolute effect measures in systematic review abstracts

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 81, Issue , 2017, Pages 3-12

  Agarwal, Arnav ^a,b   Johnston, Bradley C ^b,c,d,e   Vernooij, Robin W M ^f   Carrasco Labra, Alonso ^b,g   Brignardello Petersen, Romina ^b,g   Neumann, Ignacio ^b,h   Akl, Elie A ^b,i   Sun, Xin ^b,j   Briel, Matthias ^b,k   Busse, Jason W ^b,l   Ebrahim, Shanil ^b   Granados, Carlos E ^b,m   Iorio, Alfonso ^b   Irfan, Affan ⁿ   Martínez García, Laura ^f   Mustafa, Reem A ^b,o   Ramirez Morera, Anggie ^p   Selva, Anna ^f   Solà, Ivan ^f   Sanabrai, Andrea J ^f   Tikkinen, Kari A O ^q   Vandvik, Per O ^r   Zhang, Yuqing ^b   Zazueta, Oscar E ^f   Zhou, Qi ^b   Schunemann, Holger J ^b   Guyatt, Gordon H ^b   Alonso Coello, Pablo ^b,f,s   more..

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^d HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^e HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN   (Canada)

^f BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE SANT PAU IIB SANT PAU   (Spain)

^g UNIVERSITY OF CHILE   (Chile)

^h PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DE CHILE   (Chile)

ⁱ AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF BEIRUT   (Lebanon)

^j SICHUAN UNIVERSITY   (China)

^k UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL BASEL   (Switzerland)

^l MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^m UNIVERSIDAD DE LA SABANA   (Colombia)

ⁿ UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^o UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI KANSAS CITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^p CAJA COSTARRICENSE DE SEGURO SOCIAL   (Costa Rica)

^q HELSINKI UNIVERSITY CENTRAL HOSPITAL   (Finland)

^r NORWEGIAN KNOWLEDGE CENTRE FOR THE HEALTH SERVICES   (Norway)

^s CIBER EPIDEMIOLOGÍA Y SALUD PÚBLICA CIBERESP   (Spain)

more..

Author keywords

Absolute measures; Abstract reporting; Cochrane reviews; Explicit reporting; Non Cochrane reviews; Patient important outcomes

Indexed keywords

ABSTRACT REPORT; AUTHOR; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOM SAMPLE; REVIEW; STRATIFIED SAMPLE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); DOCUMENTATION; LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; RESEARCH; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; WRITING;

ABSTRACTING AND INDEXING AS TOPIC; AUTHORSHIP; HUMANS; PATIENT OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH REPORT; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 85011076222     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.08.004     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. [1] The PLoS Medicine Editors. The impact of open access upon public health. PLoS Med, 3, 2006, e252.
2. [2] Beller, E.M., Glasziou, P.P., Altman, D.G., Hopewell, S., Bastian, H., Chalmers, I., et al. PRISMA for abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts. PLoS Med, 10, 2013, e1001419.
3. [3] Barratt, A., Wyer, P.C., Hatala, R., McGinn, T., Dans, A.L., Keitz, S., et al. Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 1. Relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction and number needed to treat. CMAJ 171 (2004), 353–358.
4. [4] Replogle, W.H., Johnson, W.D., Interpretation of absolute measures of disease risk in comparative research. Fam Med 39 (2007), 432–435.
5. [5] Citrome, L., Quantifying clinical relevance. Innov Clin Neurosci 11 (2014), 26–30.
6. [6] Citrome, L., Relative vs. absolute measures of benefit and risk: what's the difference?. Acta Psychiatr Scand 121 (2010), 94–102.
7. [7] Akobeng, A.K., Understanding measures of treatment effect in clinical trials. Arch Dis Child 90 (2005), 54–56.
8. [8] Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR). Standards for the reporting of new Cochrane Intervention Reviews. Report. v.1.1, 2012.
9. [9] Beller, E.M., Glasziou, P.P., Hopewell, S., Altman, D.G., Reporting of effect direction and size in abstracts of systematic reviews. JAMA 306 (2011), 1981–1982.
10. [10] Alonso-Coello, P., Carrasco-Labra, A., Brignardello-Petersen, R., Neumann, I., Akl, E.A., Sun, X., et al. A methodological survey of the analysis, reporting and interpretation of Absolute Risk ReductiOn in systematic revieWs (ARROW): a study protocol. Syst Rev, 2, 2013, 113.
11. [11] Landis, J.R., Koch, G.G., The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33 (1977), 159–174.
12. [12] King, N.B., Harper, S., Young, M.E., Use of relative and absolute effect measures in reporting health inequalities: structured review. BMJ, 345, 2012, e5774.
13. [13] Hopewell, S., Boutron, I., Altman, D.G., Ravaud, P., Incorporation of assessments of risk of bias of primary studies in systematic reviews of randomised trials: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open, 3, 2013, e003342.
14. [14] Alonso-Coello, P., Carrasco-Labra, A., Brignardello-Petersen, R., Neumann, I., Akl, E.A., Vernooij, R.W., et al. Systematic reviews suffer from major limitations in reporting absolute effects. J Clin Epidemiol 72 (2016), 16–26.
15. [15] Johnston, B.C., Ma, S.S., Goldenberg, J.Z., Thorlund, K., Vandvik, P.O., Loeb, M., et al. Probiotics for the prevention of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 157 (2012), 878–888.
16. [16] Daneman, N., A probiotic trial: tipping the balance of evidence?. Lancet 382 (2013), 1228–1230.
17. [17] Allen, S.J., Wareham, K., Wang, D., Bradley, C., Hutchings, H., Harris, W., et al. Lactobacilli and bifidobacteria in the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhoea and Clostridium difficile diarrhea in older inpatients (PLACIDE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. Lancet 382 (2013), 1249–1257.
18. [18] de Boer, S.P., Barnes, E.H., Westerhout, C.M., Simes, R.J., Granger, C.B., Kastrati, A., et al. High-risk patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction derive greatest absolute benefit from primary percutaneous coronary intervention: results from the Primary Coronary Angioplasty Trialist versus thrombolysis (PCAT)-2 collaboration. Am Heart J 161 (2011), 500–507.
19. [19] Iorio, A., Spencer, F.A., Falavigna, M., Alba, C., Lang, E., Burnand, B., et al. Use of GRADE for assessment of evidence about prognosis: rating confidence in estimates of event rates in broad categories of patients. BMJ, 350, 2015, h870.
20. [20] Spencer, F.A., Iorio, A., You, J., Murad, M.H., Schünemann, H.J., Vandvik, P.O., et al. Uncertainties in baseline risk estimates and confidence in treatment effects. BMJ, 345, 2012, e7401.
21. [21] Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ, 339, 2009, b2535.
22. [22] Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, 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.