Cargando…
Managing the incidence of selective reporting bias: a survey of Cochrane review groups
BACKGROUND: Selective reporting bias (SRB), the incomplete publication of outcomes measured or of analyses performed in a study, may lead to the over- or underestimation of treatment effects or harms. Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions are required to assess the risk of SRB, achieved in pa...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4472158/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26071043 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0070-y |
_version_ | 1782377011221626880 |
---|---|
author | Reid, Emma K Tejani, Aaron M Huan, Lawrence N Egan, Gregory O’Sullivan, Cait Mayhew, Alain D Kabir, Monisha |
author_facet | Reid, Emma K Tejani, Aaron M Huan, Lawrence N Egan, Gregory O’Sullivan, Cait Mayhew, Alain D Kabir, Monisha |
author_sort | Reid, Emma K |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Selective reporting bias (SRB), the incomplete publication of outcomes measured or of analyses performed in a study, may lead to the over- or underestimation of treatment effects or harms. Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions are required to assess the risk of SRB, achieved in part by applying the Cochrane risk of bias tool to each included randomised trial. The Cochrane Handbook outlines strategies for a comprehensive risk of bias assessment, but the extent to which these are followed by Cochrane review groups (CRGs) has not been assessed to date. The objective of this study was to determine the methods which CRGs require of their authors to address SRB within systematic reviews, and how SRB risk assessments are verified. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was developed and distributed electronically to the 52 CRGs involved in intervention reviews. RESULTS: Responses from 42 CRGs show that the majority refer their authors to the Cochrane Handbook for specific instruction regarding assessments of SRB. The handbook strategies remain variably enforced, with 57 % (24/42) of CRGs not requiring review authors to search for included trial protocols and 31 % (13/42) not requiring that contact with individual study authors be attempted. Only half (48 %, 20/42) of the groups consistently verify review authors’ assessments of the risk of SRB to ensure completeness. CONCLUSIONS: A range of practices are used by CRGs for addressing SRB, with many steps outlined in the Cochrane Handbook being encouraged but not required. The majority of CRGs do not consider their review authors to be sufficiently competent to assess for SRB, yet risk of bias assessments are not always verified by editors before publication. The implications of SRB may not be fully appreciated by all CRGs, and resolving the identified issues may require an approach targeting several steps in the systematic review process. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0070-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4472158 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-44721582015-06-19 Managing the incidence of selective reporting bias: a survey of Cochrane review groups Reid, Emma K Tejani, Aaron M Huan, Lawrence N Egan, Gregory O’Sullivan, Cait Mayhew, Alain D Kabir, Monisha Syst Rev Research BACKGROUND: Selective reporting bias (SRB), the incomplete publication of outcomes measured or of analyses performed in a study, may lead to the over- or underestimation of treatment effects or harms. Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions are required to assess the risk of SRB, achieved in part by applying the Cochrane risk of bias tool to each included randomised trial. The Cochrane Handbook outlines strategies for a comprehensive risk of bias assessment, but the extent to which these are followed by Cochrane review groups (CRGs) has not been assessed to date. The objective of this study was to determine the methods which CRGs require of their authors to address SRB within systematic reviews, and how SRB risk assessments are verified. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was developed and distributed electronically to the 52 CRGs involved in intervention reviews. RESULTS: Responses from 42 CRGs show that the majority refer their authors to the Cochrane Handbook for specific instruction regarding assessments of SRB. The handbook strategies remain variably enforced, with 57 % (24/42) of CRGs not requiring review authors to search for included trial protocols and 31 % (13/42) not requiring that contact with individual study authors be attempted. Only half (48 %, 20/42) of the groups consistently verify review authors’ assessments of the risk of SRB to ensure completeness. CONCLUSIONS: A range of practices are used by CRGs for addressing SRB, with many steps outlined in the Cochrane Handbook being encouraged but not required. The majority of CRGs do not consider their review authors to be sufficiently competent to assess for SRB, yet risk of bias assessments are not always verified by editors before publication. The implications of SRB may not be fully appreciated by all CRGs, and resolving the identified issues may require an approach targeting several steps in the systematic review process. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0070-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2015-06-13 /pmc/articles/PMC4472158/ /pubmed/26071043 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0070-y Text en © Reid et al. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Reid, Emma K Tejani, Aaron M Huan, Lawrence N Egan, Gregory O’Sullivan, Cait Mayhew, Alain D Kabir, Monisha Managing the incidence of selective reporting bias: a survey of Cochrane review groups |
title | Managing the incidence of selective reporting bias: a survey of Cochrane review groups |
title_full | Managing the incidence of selective reporting bias: a survey of Cochrane review groups |
title_fullStr | Managing the incidence of selective reporting bias: a survey of Cochrane review groups |
title_full_unstemmed | Managing the incidence of selective reporting bias: a survey of Cochrane review groups |
title_short | Managing the incidence of selective reporting bias: a survey of Cochrane review groups |
title_sort | managing the incidence of selective reporting bias: a survey of cochrane review groups |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4472158/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26071043 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0070-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT reidemmak managingtheincidenceofselectivereportingbiasasurveyofcochranereviewgroups AT tejaniaaronm managingtheincidenceofselectivereportingbiasasurveyofcochranereviewgroups AT huanlawrencen managingtheincidenceofselectivereportingbiasasurveyofcochranereviewgroups AT egangregory managingtheincidenceofselectivereportingbiasasurveyofcochranereviewgroups AT osullivancait managingtheincidenceofselectivereportingbiasasurveyofcochranereviewgroups AT mayhewalaind managingtheincidenceofselectivereportingbiasasurveyofcochranereviewgroups AT kabirmonisha managingtheincidenceofselectivereportingbiasasurveyofcochranereviewgroups |