Dataset Information

Outcome reporting bias in Cochrane systematic reviews: a cross-sectional analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Discrepancies in outcome reporting (DOR) between protocol and published studies include inclusions of new outcomes, omission of prespecified outcomes, upgrade and downgrade of secondary and primary outcomes, and changes in definitions of prespecified outcomes. DOR can result in outcome reporting bias (ORB) when changes in outcomes occur after knowledge of results. This has potential to overestimate treatment effects and underestimate harms. This can also occur at the level of systematic reviews when changes in outcomes occur after knowledge of results of included studies. The prevalence of DOR and ORB in systematic reviews is unknown in systematic reviews published post-2007.

Objective

To estimate the prevalence of DOR and risk of ORB in all Cochrane reviews between the years 2007 and 2014.

Methods

A stratified random sampling approach was applied to collect a representative sample of Cochrane systematic reviews from each Cochrane review group. DOR was assessed by matching outcomes in each systematic review with their respective protocol. When DOR occurred, reviews were further assessed if there was a risk of ORB (unclear, low or high risk). We classified DOR as a high risk for ORB if the discrepancy occurred after knowledge of results in the systematic review.

Results

150 of 350 (43%) review and protocol pairings contained DOR. When reviews were further scrutinised, 23% (35 of 150) of reviews with DOR contained a high risk of ORB, with changes being made after knowledge of results from individual trials.

Conclusions

In our study, we identified just under a half of Cochrane reviews with at least one DOR. Of these, a fifth were at high risk of ORB. The presence of DOR and ORB in Cochrane reviews is of great concern; however, a solution is relatively simple. Authors are encouraged to be transparent where outcomes change and to describe the legitimacy of changing outcomes in order to prevent suspicion of bias.

SUBMITTER: Shah K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7076244 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite the growing reputation and subject coverage of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, many systematic reviews continue to be published solely in paper-based health care journals. This study was designed to determine why authors choose to publish their systematic reviews outside of the Cochrane Collaboration and if they might be interested in converting their reviews to Cochrane format for publication in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. METHODS:Cross-sectional survey of Australian primary authors of systematic reviews not published on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews identified from the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness. RESULTS:We identified 88 systematic reviews from the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness with an Australian as the primary author. We surveyed 52 authors for whom valid contact information was available. The response rate was 88 per cent (46/52). Ten authors replied without completing the survey, leaving 36 valid surveys for analysis. The most frequently cited reasons for not undertaking a Cochrane review were: lack of time (78%), the need to undergo specific Cochrane training (46%), unwillingness to update reviews (36%), difficulties with the Cochrane process (26%) and the review topic already registered with the Cochrane Collaboration (21%). (Percentages based on completed responses to individual questions.) Nearly half the respondents would consider converting their review to Cochrane format. Dedicated time emerged as the most important factor in facilitating the potential conversion process. Other factors included navigating the Cochrane system, assistance with updating and financial support. Eighty-six per cent were willing to have their review converted to Cochrane format by another author. CONCLUSION:Time required to complete a Cochrane review and the need for specific training are the primary reasons why some authors publish systematic reviews outside of the Cochrane Collaboration. Encouragingly, almost half of the authors would consider converting their review to Cochrane format. Based on the current number of reviews in the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, this could result in more than 700 additional Cochrane reviews. Ways of supporting these authors and how to provide dedicated time to convert systematic reviews needs further consideration.

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: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.