Literature DB >> 27555080

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

Arnav Agarwal1, Bradley C Johnston2, Robin W M Vernooij3, Alonso Carrasco-Labra4, Romina Brignardello-Petersen4, Ignacio Neumann5, Elie A Akl6, Xin Sun7, Matthias Briel8, Jason W Busse9, Shanil Ebrahim10, Carlos E Granados11, Alfonso Iorio12, Affan Irfan13, Laura Martínez García3, Reem A Mustafa14, Anggie Ramirez-Morera15, Anna Selva3, Ivan Solà3, Andrea J Sanabrai3, Kari A O Tikkinen16, Per O Vandvik17, Yuqing Zhang12, Oscar E Zazueta3, Qi Zhou12, Holger J Schunemann12, Gordon H Guyatt12, Pablo Alonso-Coello18.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Explicit reporting of absolute measures is important to ensure treatment effects are correctly interpreted. We examined the extent to which authors report absolute effects for patient-important outcomes in abstracts of systematic review (SR). STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: We searched OVID MEDLINE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify eligible SRs published in the year 2010. Citations were stratified into Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, with repeated random sampling in a 1:1 ratio. Paired reviewers screened articles and recorded abstract characteristics, including reporting of effect measures for the most patient-important outcomes of benefit and harm.
RESULTS: We included 96 Cochrane and 94 non-Cochrane reviews. About 117 (77.5%) relative measures were reported in abstracts for outcomes of benefit, whereas only 34 (22.5%) absolute measures were reported. Similarly, for outcomes of harm, 41 (87.2%) relative measures were provided in abstracts, compared with only 6 (12.8%) absolute measures. Eighteen (9.5%) abstracts reported both absolute and relative measures for outcomes of benefit, whereas only two (1.1%) abstracts reported both measures for outcomes of harm. Results were similar between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.
CONCLUSION: SR abstracts seldom report measures of absolute effect. Journal editors should insist that authors report both relative and absolute effects for patient-important outcomes.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

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

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27555080     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.08.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  8 in total

1.  Patient-important outcomes in systematic reviews: Poor quality of evidence.

Authors:  Youri Yordanov; Agnes Dechartres; Philippe Ravaud
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-04-05       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Triaging advanced GI endoscopy procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic: consensus recommendations using the Delphi method.

Authors:  Mandeep S Sawhney; Mohammad Bilal; Heiko Pohl; Vladimir M Kushnir; Mouen A Khashab; Allison R Schulman; Tyler M Berzin; Prabhleen Chahal; V Raman Muthusamy; Shyam Varadarajulu; Subhas Banerjee; Gregory G Ginsberg; Gottumukkala S Raju; Joseph D Feuerstein
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2020-05-16       Impact factor: 9.427

3.  Patient-relevant outcomes: what are we talking about? A scoping review to improve conceptual clarity.

Authors:  Christine Kersting; Malte Kneer; Anne Barzel
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2020-06-29       Impact factor: 2.655

Review 4.  Barriers to Education and Shared Decision Making in the Chronic Kidney Disease Population: A Narrative Review.

Authors:  Brendan P Cassidy; Leah E Getchell; Lori Harwood; Juliya Hemmett; Louise M Moist
Journal:  Can J Kidney Health Dis       Date:  2018-11-02

5.  Patients' perspective on supposedly patient-relevant process and outcome parameters: a cross-sectional survey within the 'PRO patients study'.

Authors:  Christine Kersting; Julia Hülsmann; Klaus Weckbecker; Achim Mortsiefer
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2022-01-14       Impact factor: 2.655

6.  Similarities, reliability and gaps in assessing the quality of conduct of systematic reviews using AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS: systematic survey of nutrition reviews.

Authors:  Mateusz J Swierz; Dawid Storman; Joanna Zajac; Magdalena Koperny; Paulina Weglarz; Wojciech Staskiewicz; Magdalena Gorecka; Anna Skuza; Adam Wach; Klaudia Kaluzinska; Justyna Bochenek-Cibor; Bradley C Johnston; Malgorzata M Bala
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2021-11-27       Impact factor: 4.615

7.  Patient-important outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials of pharmacologic treatments for COVID-19: a protocol of a META-epidemiological study.

Authors:  Mario A Jimenez-Mora; Andrea Ramírez Varela; Jose F Meneses-Echavez; Julia Bidonde; Adriana Angarita-Fonseca; Reed A C Siemieniuk; Dena Zeraatkar; Jessica J Bartoszko; Romina Brignardello-Petersen; Kimia Honarmand; Bram Rochwerg; Gordon Guyatt; Juan José Yepes-Nuñez
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2021-11-01

8.  Efficacy and safety of chinese herbal medicine for treating mild or moderate COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies.

Authors:  Hongfei Zhu; Mengting Li; Chen Tian; Honghao Lai; Yuqing Zhang; Jiaheng Shi; Nannan Shi; Hui Zhao; Kehu Yang; Hongcai Shang; Xin Sun; Jie Liu; Long Ge; Luqi Huang
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2022-09-07       Impact factor: 5.988

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.