Limits...
Towards core outcome set (COS) development: a follow-up descriptive survey of outcomes in Cochrane reviews.

Wuytack F, Smith V, Clarke M, Williamson P, Gargon E - Syst Rev (2015)

Bottom Line: For 23 % (233) of these non-reported outcomes, we did not find any reason in the text of the review for this non-report.The proportion of specified outcomes that were reported in Cochrane reviews had increased in 2013 (68 %) compared to 2007 (61 %) and 2011 (65 %).Importantly, 2013 Cochrane reviews that did not report specified outcomes were twice as likely to provide an explanation for why the outcome was not reported.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Nursing & Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, 24 D'Olier Street, Dublin 2, Ireland. wuytacf@tcd.ie.

ABSTRACT

Background: A core outcome set (COS) can address problems of outcome heterogeneity and outcome reporting bias in trials and systematic reviews, including Cochrane reviews, helping to reduce waste. One of the aims of the international Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative is to link the development and use of COS with the outcomes specified and reported in Cochrane reviews, including the outcomes listed in the summary of findings (SoF) tables. As part of this work, an earlier exploratory survey of the outcomes of newly published 2007 and 2011 Cochrane reviews was performed. This survey examined the use of COS, the variety of specified outcomes, and outcome reporting in Cochrane reviews by Cochrane Review Group (CRG). To examine changes over time and to explore outcomes that were repeatedly specified over time in Cochrane reviews by CRG, we conducted a follow-up survey of outcomes in 2013 Cochrane reviews.

Methods: A descriptive survey of outcomes in Cochrane reviews that were first published in 2013. Outcomes specified in the methods sections and reported in the results section of the Cochrane reviews were examined by CRG. We also explored the uptake of SoF tables, the number of outcomes included in these, and the quality of the evidence for the outcomes.

Results: Across the 50 CRGs, 375 Cochrane reviews that included at least one study specified a total of 3142 outcomes. Of these outcomes, 32 % (1008) were not reported in the results section of these reviews. For 23 % (233) of these non-reported outcomes, we did not find any reason in the text of the review for this non-report. Fifty-seven percent (216/375) of reviews included a SoF table.

Conclusions: The proportion of specified outcomes that were reported in Cochrane reviews had increased in 2013 (68 %) compared to 2007 (61 %) and 2011 (65 %). Importantly, 2013 Cochrane reviews that did not report specified outcomes were twice as likely to provide an explanation for why the outcome was not reported. There has been an increased uptake of SoF tables in Cochrane reviews. Outcomes that were repeatedly specified in Cochrane reviews by CRG in 2007, 2011, and 2013 may assist COS development.

No MeSH data available.


Specified outcomes reported and not reported by Cochrane Review Group: all outcomes
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4489040&req=5

Fig2: Specified outcomes reported and not reported by Cochrane Review Group: all outcomes

Mentions: The 439 included Cochrane reviews specified a total of 3644 outcomes in their methods sections. After excluding Cochrane reviews that had no studies in them (65 reviews), 68 % (2134/3142) of the specified outcomes were reported in the results section of the reviews. Of the 1008 non-reported outcomes across all Cochrane reviews that had studies in them, 77 % (775/1008) were not reported in the reviews’ results sections because the outcomes had not been reported in the studies included in the reviews or the review authors had not been able to extract the relevant data for that outcome. However, for the remaining 23 % (233/1008) of outcomes not reported in the Cochrane reviews, we did not find a clear reason in the text of the review for this non-report (Fig. 2). In 12 Cochrane reviews, a total of 58 outcomes were noted in the review as being added post-hoc to the protocol. Of these 58 outcomes, 15 had been added to the list of specified outcomes in the methods section of these reviews by the authors. The remaining 43 were only present in the results section of the review.Fig. 2


Towards core outcome set (COS) development: a follow-up descriptive survey of outcomes in Cochrane reviews.

Wuytack F, Smith V, Clarke M, Williamson P, Gargon E - Syst Rev (2015)

Specified outcomes reported and not reported by Cochrane Review Group: all outcomes
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4489040&req=5

Fig2: Specified outcomes reported and not reported by Cochrane Review Group: all outcomes
Mentions: The 439 included Cochrane reviews specified a total of 3644 outcomes in their methods sections. After excluding Cochrane reviews that had no studies in them (65 reviews), 68 % (2134/3142) of the specified outcomes were reported in the results section of the reviews. Of the 1008 non-reported outcomes across all Cochrane reviews that had studies in them, 77 % (775/1008) were not reported in the reviews’ results sections because the outcomes had not been reported in the studies included in the reviews or the review authors had not been able to extract the relevant data for that outcome. However, for the remaining 23 % (233/1008) of outcomes not reported in the Cochrane reviews, we did not find a clear reason in the text of the review for this non-report (Fig. 2). In 12 Cochrane reviews, a total of 58 outcomes were noted in the review as being added post-hoc to the protocol. Of these 58 outcomes, 15 had been added to the list of specified outcomes in the methods section of these reviews by the authors. The remaining 43 were only present in the results section of the review.Fig. 2

Bottom Line: For 23 % (233) of these non-reported outcomes, we did not find any reason in the text of the review for this non-report.The proportion of specified outcomes that were reported in Cochrane reviews had increased in 2013 (68 %) compared to 2007 (61 %) and 2011 (65 %).Importantly, 2013 Cochrane reviews that did not report specified outcomes were twice as likely to provide an explanation for why the outcome was not reported.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Nursing & Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, 24 D'Olier Street, Dublin 2, Ireland. wuytacf@tcd.ie.

ABSTRACT

Background: A core outcome set (COS) can address problems of outcome heterogeneity and outcome reporting bias in trials and systematic reviews, including Cochrane reviews, helping to reduce waste. One of the aims of the international Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative is to link the development and use of COS with the outcomes specified and reported in Cochrane reviews, including the outcomes listed in the summary of findings (SoF) tables. As part of this work, an earlier exploratory survey of the outcomes of newly published 2007 and 2011 Cochrane reviews was performed. This survey examined the use of COS, the variety of specified outcomes, and outcome reporting in Cochrane reviews by Cochrane Review Group (CRG). To examine changes over time and to explore outcomes that were repeatedly specified over time in Cochrane reviews by CRG, we conducted a follow-up survey of outcomes in 2013 Cochrane reviews.

Methods: A descriptive survey of outcomes in Cochrane reviews that were first published in 2013. Outcomes specified in the methods sections and reported in the results section of the Cochrane reviews were examined by CRG. We also explored the uptake of SoF tables, the number of outcomes included in these, and the quality of the evidence for the outcomes.

Results: Across the 50 CRGs, 375 Cochrane reviews that included at least one study specified a total of 3142 outcomes. Of these outcomes, 32 % (1008) were not reported in the results section of these reviews. For 23 % (233) of these non-reported outcomes, we did not find any reason in the text of the review for this non-report. Fifty-seven percent (216/375) of reviews included a SoF table.

Conclusions: The proportion of specified outcomes that were reported in Cochrane reviews had increased in 2013 (68 %) compared to 2007 (61 %) and 2011 (65 %). Importantly, 2013 Cochrane reviews that did not report specified outcomes were twice as likely to provide an explanation for why the outcome was not reported. There has been an increased uptake of SoF tables in Cochrane reviews. Outcomes that were repeatedly specified in Cochrane reviews by CRG in 2007, 2011, and 2013 may assist COS development.

No MeSH data available.