Literature DB >> 28370877

Outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews related to wound care: An investigation into prespecification.

Zhenmi Liu1, Ian J Saldanha2, David Margolis3, Jo C Dumville1, Nicky A Cullum1,4.   

Abstract

The choice of outcomes in systematic reviews of the effects of interventions is crucial, dictating which data are included and analyzed. Full prespecification of outcomes in systematic reviews can reduce the risk of outcome reporting bias but, this issue has not been widely investigated. This study is the first to analyze the nature and specification of outcomes used in Cochrane Wounds (CW) systematic reviews. Adequacy of outcome specification was assessed using a five-element framework of key outcome components: outcome domain, specific measurement, specific metric, method of aggregation, and time points. We identified all CW review titles associated with a protocol published on or before October 1, 2014. We categorized all reported outcome domains and recorded whether they were primary or secondary outcomes. We explored outcome specification for outcome domains reported in 25% or more of the eligible protocols. We included 106 protocols and 126 outcome domains; 24.6% (31/126) domains were used as primary outcomes at least once. Eight domains were reported in ≥25% of protocols: wound healing, quality of life, costs, adverse events, resource use, pain, wound infection, and mortality. Wound healing was the most completely specified outcome domain (median 3; interquartile range [IQR] =1-5) along with resource use (median 3; IQR 2-4). Quality of life (median 1; IQR 1-3), pain (median 1; IQR 1-3), and costs (median 1; IQR 1-4) were the least completely specified outcome domains. Outcomes are frequently poorly prespecified and the elements of metric, aggregation, and time-point are rarely adequately specified. We strongly recommend that reviewers be more vigilant about prespecifying outcomes, using the five-element framework. Better prespecification is likely to improve review quality by reducing bias in data abstraction and analysis, and by reducing subjectivity in the decision of which outcomes to extract; it may also improve outcome specification in clinical trial design and reporting.
© 2017 by the Wound Healing Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28370877     DOI: 10.1111/wrr.12519

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Wound Repair Regen        ISSN: 1067-1927            Impact factor:   3.617


  5 in total

1.  Quality of reporting of outcomes in trials of therapeutic interventions for pressure injuries in adults: a systematic methodological survey.

Authors:  Jéssica Steffany Miranda; Arthur Pollo Deonizio; Joelcio Francisco Abbade; Hélio Amante Miot; Lawrence Mbuagbaw; Lehana Thabane; Luciana P F Abbade
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2020-11-25       Impact factor: 3.315

Review 2.  Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30,000 records and counting.

Authors:  Matthew J Page; Larissa Shamseer; Andrea C Tricco
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2018-02-20

3.  Quality of reporting of outcomes in trials of therapeutic interventions for pressure ulcers in adults: a protocol for a systematic survey.

Authors:  Jessica Steffany Miranda; Luciana Patricia Fernandes Abbade; Arthur Pollo Deonizio; Joelcio Francisco Abbade; Lawrence Mbuagbaw; Lehana Thabane
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-02-15       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Assessing the completeness and comparability of outcomes in systematic reviews addressing food security: protocol for a methodological study.

Authors:  Solange Durão; Marianne Visser; Tamara Kredo; Ian J Saldanha
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2020-01-09

5.  Practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (with examples from the MUDS study).

Authors:  Evan Mayo-Wilson; Tianjing Li; Nicole Fusco; Kay Dickersin
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2017-12-15       Impact factor: 5.273

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.