Dataset Information

Discrepancies in Outcome Reporting Exist Between Protocols and Published Oral Health Cochrane Systematic Reviews.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To assess discrepancies in the analyzed outcomes between protocols and published reviews within Cochrane oral health systematic reviews (COHG) on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR).

Study design and setting

All COHG systematic reviews on the CDSR and the corresponding protocols were retrieved in November 2014 and information on the reported outcomes was recorded. Data was collected at the systematic review level by two reviewers independently.

Results

One hundred and fifty two reviews were included. In relation to primary outcomes, 11.2% were downgraded to secondary outcomes, 9.9% were omitted altogether in the final publication and new primary outcomes were identified in 18.4% of publications. For secondary outcomes, 2% were upgraded to primary, 12.5% were omitted and 30.9% were newly introduced in the publication. Overall, 45.4% of reviews had at least one discrepancy when compared to the protocol; these were reported in 14.5% reviews. The number of review updates appears to be associated with discrepancies between final review and protocol (OR: 3.18, 95% CI: 1.77, 5.74, p<0.001). The risk of reporting significant results was lower for both downgraded outcomes [RR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.17, 1.58, p = 0.24] and upgraded or newly introduced outcomes [RR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.36, 1.64, p = 0.50] compared to outcomes with no discrepancies. The risk of reporting significant results was higher for upgraded or newly introduced outcomes compared to downgraded outcomes (RR = 1.19, 95% CI: 0.65, 2.16, p = 0.57). None of the comparisons reached statistical significance.

Conclusion

While no evidence of selective outcome reporting was found in this study, based on the present analysis of SRs published within COHG systematic reviews, discrepancies between outcomes in pre-published protocols and final reviews continue to be common. Solutions such as the use of standardized outcomes to reduce the prevalence of this issue may need to be explored.

SUBMITTER: Pandis N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4569349 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Discrepancies in Outcome Reporting Exist Between Protocols and Published Oral Health Cochrane Systematic Reviews.

Pandis Nikolaos N Fleming Padhraig S PS Worthington Helen H Dwan Kerry K Salanti Georgia G

PloS one 20150914 9

<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess discrepancies in the analyzed outcomes between protocols and published reviews within Cochrane oral health systematic reviews (COHG) on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR).<h4>Study design and setting</h4>All COHG systematic reviews on the CDSR and the corresponding protocols were retrieved in November 2014 and information on the reported outcomes was recorded. Data was collected at the systematic review level by two reviewers independently.<h4>Results ...[more]

PMID: 26368938

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundChinese herbal medicines (CHMs) are the major interventions of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), which are typically administered as either single herbs or formulas. The Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) of CHMs are essential references for evaluating the efficacy and safety of CHMs interventions; they are expected to be accurate and reliable. This study aimed to assess the reporting quality of these SRs, particularly whether necessary information related to CHM was adequately reported.MethodsThe Cochrane Database was systematically searched for all SRs of CHM that were published up to 31 December 2017. The primary analysis was to assess their reporting quality based on 27-item of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and 9-item of CHM-related information designed according to TCM theory. Descriptive statistics were additionally used to analyze their baseline characteristics.ResultsA total of 109 Cochrane SRs of CHM were identified from 1999 to 2017. For 27-item of PRISMA, 26 had the reporting compliances higher than 50%, of which 11 were fully reporting (100%). However, for CHM-related information, 65 (59.6%) SRs did not report the specific name of the CHM in the title, 42 (38.5%) lacked TCM-related rationales in the introduction, 62 (56.9%) did not include CHM-related characteristics in the additional analyses, and 77 (70.6%) did not analyze CHM results in terms of TCM-related theories in the discussion. Of 97 SRs that included clinical trials, 38 (39.2%) did not provide the details of composition and dosage of CHMs, 85 (87.6%) did not report the CHM sources, 13 (13.4%) did not provide the dosage form, 95 (97.9%) lacked CHM quality control information, and 57 (58.8%) did not describe details of the controls. For 62 (72.9%) of 85 SRs that included meta-analysis, it was impossible to assess whether meta-analysis had been properly conducted due to inadequate reporting of CHM interventions.ConclusionAlthough the Cochrane SRs of CHM showed reporting compliance with PRISMA checklist, their reporting quality needs improvement, especially about full reporting of CHM interventions and of TCM-related rationales. Reporting guideline of "PRISMA extension for CHM interventions" should be developed thus to improve their quality.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare cancer-related systematic reviews (SRs) published in the Cochrane Database of SRs (CDSR) and high-impact journals, with respect to type, content, quality and citation rates.DesignMethodological SR with assessment and comparison of SRs and meta-analyses. Two authors independently assessed methodological quality using an Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)-based extraction form. Both authors independently screened search results, extracted content-relevant characteristics and retrieved citation numbers of the included reviews using the Clarivate Analytics Web of Science database.Data sourcesCancer-related SRs were retrieved from the CDSR, as well as from the 10 journals which publish oncological SRs and had the highest impact factors, using a comprehensive search in both the CDSR and MEDLINE.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesWe included all cancer-related SRs and meta-analyses published from January 2011 to May 2016. Methodological SRs were excluded.ResultsWe included 346 applicable Cochrane reviews and 215 SRs from high-impact journals. Cochrane reviews consistently met more individual AMSTAR criteria, notably with regard to an a priori design (risk ratio (RR) 3.89; 95%?CI 3.10 to 4.88), inclusion of the grey literature and trial registries (RR 3.52; 95%?CI 2.84 to 4.37) in their searches, and the reporting of excluded studies (RR 8.80; 95%?CI 6.06 to 12.78). Cochrane reviews were less likely to address questions of prognosis (RR 0.04; 95%?CI 0.02 to 0.09), use individual patient data (RR 0.03; 95%?CI 0.01 to 0.09) or be based on non-randomised controlled trials (RR 0.04; 95%?CI 0.02 to 0.09). Citation rates of Cochrane reviews were notably lower than those for high-impact journals (Cochrane reviews: mean number of citations 6.52 (range 0-143); high-impact journal SRs: 74.45 (0-652)).ConclusionsWhen comparing cancer-related SRs published in the CDSR versus those published in high-impact medical journals, Cochrane reviews were consistently of higher methodological quality, but cited less frequently.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Consumers, clinicians, policymakers and researchers require high quality evidence to guide decision-making in child health. Though Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) are a well-established source of evidence, little is known about the characteristics of non-Cochrane child-relevant SRs. To complement published descriptions of Cochrane SRs, we aimed to characterize the epidemiologic, methodological, and reporting qualities of non-Cochrane child-relevant SRs published in 2014. METHODS:English-language child-relevant SRs of quantitative primary research published outside the Cochrane Library in 2014 were eligible for this descriptive analysis. A research librarian searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PubMed in August 2015. A single reviewer screened articles for inclusion; a second verified the excluded studies. Reviewers extracted: general characteristics of the review; included study characteristics; methodological approaches. We performed univariate analyses and presented the findings narratively. RESULTS:We identified 1598 child-relevant SRs containing a median (IQR) 19 (11, 33) studies. These originated primarily from high-income countries (n?=?1247, 78.0%) and spanned 47 of the 53 Cochrane Review Groups. Most synthesized therapeutic (n?=?753, 47.1%) or epidemiologic (n?=?701, 43.8%) evidence. Though 39.3% (n?=?628) of SRs included evidence related to children only, few were published in pediatric-specific journals (n?=?283, 17.7%). Reporting quality seemed poor based on the items we assessed; few reviews mentioned an a-priori protocol (n?=?246, 15.4%) or registration (n?=?111, 6.9%), and only 23.4% (n?=?374) specified a primary outcome. Many SRs relied solely on evidence from non-RCTs (n?=?796, 49.8%). Less than two-thirds (n?=?953, 59.6%) appraised the quality of included studies and assessments of the certainty of the body of evidence were rare (n?=?102, 6.4%). CONCLUSIONS:Child-relevant Cochrane SRs are a known source of high quality evidence in pediatrics. There exists, however, an abundance of evidence from non-Cochrane SRs that may be complementary. Our findings show that high-quality non-Cochrane SRs may not be practical nor easy for knowledge users to find. Improvements are needed to ensure that evidence syntheses published outside of the Cochrane Library adhere to the high standard of conduct and reporting characteristic of Cochrane SRs.

Project description:BackgroundInconsistencies between a protocol and its umbrella review (UR) may mislead readers about the importance of findings or lead to false-positive results. Furthermore, not documenting and explaining inconsistencies in the UR could reduce its transparency. To our knowledge, no study has examined the methodological consistency of the protocols with their URs and assessed the transparency of the URs when generating evidence.ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate the inconsistency of protocols with their URs in the methodology and assess the transparency of the URs.MethodsWe searched medical-related electronic databases from their inception to January 1, 2022. We investigated inconsistencies between protocols and their publications and transparencies in the search strategy, inclusion criteria, methods of screening and data extraction, quality assessment, and statistical analysis.ResultsWe included 31 protocols and 35 publications. For the search strategy, 39 inconsistencies between the protocols and their publications were found in 26 of the 35 (74%) URs, and 16 of these inconsistencies were indicated and explained. There were 84 inconsistencies between the protocols and their URs regarding the inclusion criteria in 31 of the 35 (89%) URs, and 29 of the inconsistencies were indicated and explained. Deviations from their protocols were found in 12 of the 32 (38%) URs reporting the methods of screening, 14 of the 30 (47%) URs reporting the methods of data extraction, and 11 of the 32 (34%) URs reporting the methods for quality assessment. Of the 35 URs, 6 (17%) were inconsistent with their protocols in terms of the tools for quality assessment; one-half (3/6, 50%) of them indicated and explained the deviations. As for the statistical analysis, 31 of the 35 (89%) URs generated 61 inconsistencies between the publications and their protocols, and 16 inconsistencies were indicated and explained.ConclusionsThere was a high prevalence of inconsistencies between protocols and publications of URs, and more than one-half of the inconsistencies were not indicated and explained in the publications. Therefore, how to promote the transparency of URs will be a major part of future work.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious research on data extraction methods in systematic reviews has focused on single aspects of the process. We aimed to provide a deeper insight into these methods by analysing a current sample of reviews.MethodsWe included systematic reviews of health interventions in humans published in English. We analysed 75 Cochrane reviews from May and June 2020 and a random sample of non-Cochrane reviews published in the same period and retrieved from Medline. We linked reviews with protocols and study registrations. We collected information on preparing, piloting, and performing data extraction and on use of software to assist review conduct (automation tools). Data were extracted by one author, with 20% extracted in duplicate. Data were analysed descriptively.ResultsOf the 152 included reviews, 77 reported use of a standardized extraction form (51%); 42 provided information on the type of form used (28%); 24 on piloting (16%); 58 on what data was collected (38%); 133 on the extraction method (88%); 107 on resolving disagreements (70%); 103 on methods to obtain additional data or information (68%); 52 on procedures to avoid data errors (34%); and 47 on methods to deal with multiple study reports (31%). Items were more frequently reported in Cochrane than non-Cochrane reviews. The data extraction form used was published in 10 reviews (7%). Use of software was rarely reported except for statistical analysis software and use of RevMan and GRADEpro GDT in Cochrane reviews. Covidence was the most frequent automation tool used: 18 reviews used it for study selection (12%) and 9 for data extraction (6%).ConclusionsReporting of data extraction methods in systematic reviews is limited, especially in non-Cochrane reviews. This includes core items of data extraction such as methods used to manage disagreements. Few reviews currently use software to assist data extraction and review conduct. Our results can serve as a baseline to assess the uptake of such tools in future analyses.

Project description:OBJECTIVES: To identify all systematic reviews (SRs) published in the domain of oral health research and describe them in terms of their epidemiological and descriptive characteristics. DESIGN: Cross sectional, descriptive study. METHODS: An electronic search of seven databases was performed from inception through May 2012; bibliographies of relevant publications were also reviewed. Studies were considered for inclusion if they were oral health SRs defined as therapeutic or non-therapeutic investigations that studied a topic or an intervention related to dental, oral or craniofacial diseases/disorders. Data were extracted from all the SRs based on a number of epidemiological and descriptive characteristics. Data were analysed descriptively for all the SRs, within each of the nine dental specialities, and for Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs separately. RESULTS: 1,188 oral health (126 Cochrane and 1062 non-Cochrane) SRs published from 1991 through May 2012 were identified, encompassing the nine dental specialties. Over half (n?=?676; 56.9%) of the SRs were published in specialty oral health journals, with almost all (n?=?1,178; 99.2%) of the SRs published in English and almost none of the non-Cochrane SRs (n?=?11; 0.9%) consisting of updates of previously published SRs. 75.3% of the SRs were categorized as therapeutic, with 64.5% examining non-drug interventions, while approximately half (n?=?150/294; 51%) of the non-therapeutic SRs were classified as epidemiological SRs. The SRs included a median of 15 studies, with a meta-analysis conducted in 43.6%, in which a median of 9 studies/1 randomized trial were included in the largest meta-analysis conducted. Funding was received for 25.1% of the SRs, including nearly three-quarters (n?=?96; 76.2%) of the Cochrane SRs. CONCLUSION: Epidemiological and descriptive characteristics of the 1,188 oral health SRs varied across the nine dental specialties and by SR category (Cochrane vs. non-Cochrane). There is a clear need for more updates of SRs in all the dental specialties.

Project description:ObjectiveSystematic reviews can include cluster-randomised controlled trials (C-RCTs), which require different analysis compared with standard individual-randomised controlled trials. However, it is not known whether review authors follow the methodological and reporting guidance when including these trials. The aim of this study was to assess the methodological and reporting practice of Cochrane reviews that included C-RCTs against criteria developed from existing guidance.MethodsCriteria were developed, based on methodological literature and personal experience supervising review production and quality. Criteria were grouped into four themes: identifying, reporting, assessing risk of bias, and analysing C-RCTs. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched (2nd December 2013), and the 50 most recent reviews that included C-RCTs were retrieved. Each review was then assessed using the criteria.ResultsThe 50 reviews we identified were published by 26 Cochrane Review Groups between June 2013 and November 2013. For identifying C-RCTs, only 56% identified that C-RCTs were eligible for inclusion in the review in the eligibility criteria. For reporting C-RCTs, only eight (24%) of the 33 reviews reported the method of cluster adjustment for their included C-RCTs. For assessing risk of bias, only one review assessed all five C-RCT-specific risk-of-bias criteria. For analysing C-RCTs, of the 27 reviews that presented unadjusted data, only nine (33%) provided a warning that confidence intervals may be artificially narrow. Of the 34 reviews that reported data from unadjusted C-RCTs, only 13 (38%) excluded the unadjusted results from the meta-analyses.ConclusionsThe methodological and reporting practices in Cochrane reviews incorporating C-RCTs could be greatly improved, particularly with regard to analyses. Criteria developed as part of the current study could be used by review authors or editors to identify errors and improve the quality of published systematic reviews incorporating C-RCTs.

Dataset Information

Discrepancies in Outcome Reporting Exist Between Protocols and Published Oral Health Cochrane Systematic Reviews.

Objectives

Study design and setting

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Discrepancies in Outcome Reporting Exist Between Protocols and Published Oral Health Cochrane Systematic Reviews.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets