| Title |
Bias Due to Changes in Specified Outcomes during the Systematic Review Process
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, March 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0009810 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jamie J. Kirkham, Doug G. Altman, Paula R. Williamson |
| Abstract |
Adding, omitting or changing outcomes after a systematic review protocol is published can result in bias because it increases the potential for unacknowledged or post hoc revisions of the planned analyses. The main objective of this study was to look for discrepancies between primary outcomes listed in protocols and in the subsequent completed reviews published on the Cochrane Library. A secondary objective was to quantify the risk of bias in a set of meta-analyses where discrepancies between outcome specifications in protocols and reviews were found. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Argentina | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 172 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 2% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 166 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 36 | 21% |
| Researcher | 26 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 42 | 24% |
| Unknown | 29 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 57 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 11 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 6 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 41 | 24% |
| Unknown | 34 | 20% |