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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Reid, Emma K, Tejani, Aaron M, Huan, Lawrence N, Egan, Gregory, O’Sullivan, Cait, Mayhew, Alain D, Kabir, Monisha
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