Andrea C Tricco1, Elise Cogo2, Matthew J Page3, Julie Polisena4, Alison Booth5, Kerry Dwan6, Heather MacDonald2, Tammy J Clifford7, Lesley A Stewart5, Sharon E Straus8, David Moher9. 1. Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, East Building, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1T8, Canada; Epidemiology Division, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, 6th Floor, Toronto, Ontario M5T 3M7, Canada. Electronic address: triccoa@smh.ca. 2. Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, East Building, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1T8, Canada. 3. School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, The Alfred Centre, Monash University, Level 6, 99 Commercial Road, Melbourne, Victoria 3004, Australia. 4. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), 865 Carling Avenue Suite 600, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5S8, Canada; Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 8M5, Canada. 5. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, United Kingdom. 6. Department of Biostatistics, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Crown Street, Liverpool L69 3BX, United Kingdom. 7. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), 865 Carling Avenue Suite 600, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5S8, Canada. 8. Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, East Building, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1T8, Canada; Department of Geriatric Medicine, University of Toronto, 27 King's College Circle, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1, Canada. 9. Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital, 501 Smyth Road, PO Box 201B, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 8L6, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine outcome reporting bias of systematic reviews registered in PROSPERO. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective cohort study. The primary outcomes from systematic review publications were compared with those reported in the corresponding PROSPERO records; discrepancies in the primary outcomes were assessed as upgrades, additions, omissions, or downgrades. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to determine the likelihood of having a change in primary outcome when the meta-analysis result was favorable and statistically significant. RESULTS: Ninety-six systematic reviews were published. A discrepancy in the primary outcome occurred in 32% of the included reviews and 39% of the reviews did not explicitly specify a primary outcome(s); 6% of the primary outcomes were omitted. There was no significant increased risk of adding/upgrading (RR, 2.14; 95% CI: 0.53, 8.63) or decreased risk of downgrading (RR, 0.76; 95% CI: 0.27, 2.17) an outcome when the meta-analysis result was favorable and statistically significant. As well, there was no significant increased risk of adding/upgrading (RR, 0.89; 95% CI: 0.31, 2.53) or decreased risk of downgrading (RR, 0.56; 95% CI: 0.29, 1.08) an outcome when the conclusion was positive. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend review authors carefully consider primary outcome selection, and journals are encouraged to focus acceptance on registered systematic reviews. Copyright Â
OBJECTIVES: To examine outcome reporting bias of systematic reviews registered in PROSPERO. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective cohort study. The primary outcomes from systematic review publications were compared with those reported in the corresponding PROSPERO records; discrepancies in the primary outcomes were assessed as upgrades, additions, omissions, or downgrades. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to determine the likelihood of having a change in primary outcome when the meta-analysis result was favorable and statistically significant. RESULTS: Ninety-six systematic reviews were published. A discrepancy in the primary outcome occurred in 32% of the included reviews and 39% of the reviews did not explicitly specify a primary outcome(s); 6% of the primary outcomes were omitted. There was no significant increased risk of adding/upgrading (RR, 2.14; 95% CI: 0.53, 8.63) or decreased risk of downgrading (RR, 0.76; 95% CI: 0.27, 2.17) an outcome when the meta-analysis result was favorable and statistically significant. As well, there was no significant increased risk of adding/upgrading (RR, 0.89; 95% CI: 0.31, 2.53) or decreased risk of downgrading (RR, 0.56; 95% CI: 0.29, 1.08) an outcome when the conclusion was positive. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend review authors carefully consider primary outcome selection, and journals are encouraged to focus acceptance on registered systematic reviews. Copyright Â
Authors: Crystian B Oliveira; Mark R Elkins; Ítalo Ribeiro Lemes; Danilo de Oliveira Silva; Ronaldo V Briani; Henrique Luiz Monteiro; Fábio Mícolis de Azevedo; Rafael Zambelli Pinto Journal: Braz J Phys Ther Date: 2017-10-26 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Juan Ruano; Francisco Gómez-García; Jesús Gay-Mimbrera; Macarena Aguilar-Luque; José Luis Fernández-Rueda; Jesús Fernández-Chaichio; Patricia Alcalde-Mellado; Pedro J Carmona-Fernandez; Juan Luis Sanz-Cabanillas; Isabel Viguera-Guerra; Francisco Franco-García; Manuel Cárdenas-Aranzana; José Luis Hernández Romero; Marcelino Gonzalez-Padilla; Beatriz Isla-Tejera; Antonio Velez Garcia-Nieto Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2018-03-09
Authors: Isabel Viguera-Guerra; Juan Ruano; Macarena Aguilar-Luque; Jesús Gay-Mimbrera; Ana Montilla; Jose Luis Fernández-Rueda; José Fernández-Chaichio; Juan Luis Sanz-Cabanillas; Pedro Jesús Gómez-Arias; Antonio Vélez García-Nieto; Francisco Gómez-Garcia; Beatriz Isla-Tejera Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-02-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Alison Booth; Alex S Mitchell; Andrew Mott; Sophie James; Sarah Cockayne; Samantha Gascoyne; Catriona McDaid Journal: F1000Res Date: 2020-07-27