Do systematic reviews still exclude studies with "no relevant outcome data"?

BMJ (Online)

Volumn 358, Issue , 2017, Pages

  Dwan, Kerry M ^a   Williamson, Paula R ^b   Kirkham, Jamie J ^b  

^a St Albans House ^*  (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION PROCESSING; LETTER; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RISK FACTOR; RISK REDUCTION; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; LITERATURE;

EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 85029157199     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: 17561833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j3919     Document Type: Letter

References (4)

1. Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, et al. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ 2010;358:c365. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c365 pmid:20156912.
2. Higgins JPT, Lasserson T, Chandler J, et al. Methodological expectations of Cochrane intervention reviews. 2016. https://methods.cochrane.org/sites/default/files/public/uploads/mecir-printed-booklet-final.pdf
3. Saini P, Loke YK, Gamble C, Altman DG, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ. Selective reporting bias of harm outcomes within studies: findings from a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ 2014;358:g6501. doi:10.1136/bmj.g6501 pmid:25416499.
4. Copas J, Dwan K, Kirkham J, Williamson P. A model-based correction for outcome reporting bias in meta-analysis. Biostatistics 2014;358:370-83. doi:10.1093/biostatistics/kxt046 pmid:24215031.