View in EDS

Issues Relating to Selective Reporting When Including Non-Randomized Studies in Systematic Reviews on the Effects of Healthcare Interventions

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Issues Relating to Selective Reporting When Including Non-Randomized Studies in Systematic Reviews on the Effects of Healthcare Interventions
Language: English
Authors: Norris, Susan L., Moher, David, Reeves, Barnaby C.
Source: Research Synthesis Methods. Mar 2013 4(1):36-47.
Availability: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 12
Publication Date: 2013
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Health Services, Intervention, Outcomes of Treatment, Research Methodology, Incidence, Risk, Evidence, Control Groups, Statistical Analysis, Authors, Research Reports, Publications, Randomized Controlled Trials
DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1062
ISSN: 1759-2879
Abstract: Background: Selective outcome and analysis reporting (SOR and SAR) occur when only a subset of outcomes measured and analyzed in a study is fully reported, and are an important source of potential bias. Key methodological issues: We describe what is known about the prevalence and effects of SOR and SAR in both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRS), and the effects of SOR and SAR on summary effect estimates and conclusions in systematic reviews of the effectiveness of healthcare interventions. Guidance: Review authors should always suspect SOR and SAR in reviews that include NRS, assess primary studies for the risk of bias, and make reasonable attempts to retrieve study protocols or other documentation developed before study recruitment began. There are clues that may suggest SOR or SAR in NRS, including differences between the methods and results sections of the publication, study funder, and differences between study protocol or registration information and the study report. Conclusion: Existing evidence about reporting biases in primary studies comes almost exclusively from methodological reviews of RCTs. The prevalence and impact of SOR and SAR in NRS are likely even greater than in RCTs but it is difficult to identify and confirm selective reporting in NRS.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2016
Accession Number: EJ1108991
Database: ERIC
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1108991
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Issues Relating to Selective Reporting When Including Non-Randomized Studies in Systematic Reviews on the Effects of Healthcare Interventions
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Norris%2C+Susan+L%2E%22">Norris, Susan L.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Moher%2C+David%22">Moher, David</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Reeves%2C+Barnaby+C%2E%22">Reeves, Barnaby C.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Research+Synthesis+Methods%22"><i>Research Synthesis Methods</i></searchLink>. Mar 2013 4(1):36-47.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 12
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2013
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Health+Services%22">Health Services</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Outcomes+of+Treatment%22">Outcomes of Treatment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Methodology%22">Research Methodology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Incidence%22">Incidence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Risk%22">Risk</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evidence%22">Evidence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Control+Groups%22">Control Groups</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Statistical+Analysis%22">Statistical Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Authors%22">Authors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Reports%22">Research Reports</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Publications%22">Publications</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Randomized+Controlled+Trials%22">Randomized Controlled Trials</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/jrsm.1062
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1759-2879
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background: Selective outcome and analysis reporting (SOR and SAR) occur when only a subset of outcomes measured and analyzed in a study is fully reported, and are an important source of potential bias. Key methodological issues: We describe what is known about the prevalence and effects of SOR and SAR in both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRS), and the effects of SOR and SAR on summary effect estimates and conclusions in systematic reviews of the effectiveness of healthcare interventions. Guidance: Review authors should always suspect SOR and SAR in reviews that include NRS, assess primary studies for the risk of bias, and make reasonable attempts to retrieve study protocols or other documentation developed before study recruitment began. There are clues that may suggest SOR or SAR in NRS, including differences between the methods and results sections of the publication, study funder, and differences between study protocol or registration information and the study report. Conclusion: Existing evidence about reporting biases in primary studies comes almost exclusively from methodological reviews of RCTs. The prevalence and impact of SOR and SAR in NRS are likely even greater than in RCTs but it is difficult to identify and confirm selective reporting in NRS.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2016
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1108991
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1108991
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/jrsm.1062
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 36
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Health Services
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Outcomes of Treatment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Methodology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Incidence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Risk
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evidence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Control Groups
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Statistical Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Authors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Reports
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Publications
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Randomized Controlled Trials
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Issues Relating to Selective Reporting When Including Non-Randomized Studies in Systematic Reviews on the Effects of Healthcare Interventions
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Norris, Susan L.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Moher, David
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Reeves, Barnaby C.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 03
              Type: published
              Y: 2013
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1759-2879
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 4
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Research Synthesis Methods
              Type: main
ResultId 1