Document Detail

Selective reporting bias of harm outcomes within studies: findings from a cohort of systematic reviews.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  25416499     Owner:  NLM     Status:  In-Data-Review    
OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent and nature of selective non-reporting of harm outcomes in clinical studies that were eligible for inclusion in a cohort of systematic reviews.
DESIGN: Cohort study of systematic reviews from two databases.
SETTING: Outcome reporting bias in trials for harm outcomes (ORBIT II) in systematic reviews from the Cochrane Library and a separate cohort of systematic reviews of adverse events.
PARTICIPANTS: 92 systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies published in the Cochrane Library between issue 9, 2012 and issue 2, 2013 (Cochrane cohort) and 230 systematic reviews published between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2011 in other publications, synthesising data on harm outcomes (adverse event cohort).
METHODS: A 13 point classification system for missing outcome data on harm was developed and applied to the studies.
RESULTS: 86% (79/92) of reviews in the Cochrane cohort did not include full data from the main harm outcome of interest of each review for all of the eligible studies included within that review; 76% (173/230) for the adverse event cohort. Overall, the single primary harm outcome was inadequately reported in 76% (705/931) of the studies included in the 92 reviews from the Cochrane cohort and not reported in 47% (4159/8837) of the 230 reviews in the adverse event cohort. In a sample of primary studies not reporting on the single primary harm outcome in the review, scrutiny of the study publication revealed that outcome reporting bias was suspected in nearly two thirds (63%, 248/393).
CONCLUSIONS: The number of reviews suspected of outcome reporting bias as a result of missing or partially reported harm related outcomes from at least one eligible study is high. The declaration of important harms and the quality of the reporting of harm outcomes must be improved in both primary studies and systematic reviews.
Pooja Saini; Yoon K Loke; Carrol Gamble; Douglas G Altman; Paula R Williamson; Jamie J Kirkham
Related Documents :
20689809 - Etiology of diarrhea in older children, adolescents and adults: a systematic review.
25452989 - Unilateral multicystic dysplasia in a horseshoe kidney - a case report.
17388659 - Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews.
20649899 - What's new in atopic eczema? an analysis of systematic reviews published in 2008 and 2009.
12714879 - Intrathoracic extravasation of antineoplastic agents: case report and systematic review.
20095769 - Conducting a best evidence systematic review. part 1: from idea to data coding. beme gu...
17114859 - Cases of glioblastoma multiforme metastasizing to spinal cord.
16459519 - Aggressive infantile (desmoid-type) fibromatosis of the maxilla: a case report and new ...
1642279 - A severe case of mandibuloacral dysplasia in a girl.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article     Date:  2014-11-21
Journal Detail:
Title:  BMJ (Clinical research ed.)     Volume:  349     ISSN:  1756-1833     ISO Abbreviation:  BMJ     Publication Date:  2014  
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2014-11-22     Completed Date:  -     Revised Date:  2014-12-05    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  8900488     Medline TA:  BMJ     Country:  England    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  g6501     Citation Subset:  AIM; IM    
Copyright Information:
© Saini et al 2014.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  Central cannulation by seldinger technique: a reliable method in ascending aorta and aortic arch rep...
Next Document:  Animal models for exploring the pharmacokinetics of breast cancer therapies.