Many scenarios exist for selective inclusion and reporting of results in randomized trials and systematic reviews
Abstract Objective To collate and categorize the ways in which selective inclusion and reporting can occur in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews. Study Design and Setting Searches of the Cochrane Methodology Register, PubMed, and PsycInfo were conducted in April 2011. Methodo...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of clinical epidemiology 2013-05, Vol.66 (5), p.524-537 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 537 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 524 |
| container_title | Journal of clinical epidemiology |
| container_volume | 66 |
| creator | Page, Matthew J McKenzie, Joanne E Forbes, Andrew |
| description | Abstract Objective To collate and categorize the ways in which selective inclusion and reporting can occur in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews. Study Design and Setting Searches of the Cochrane Methodology Register, PubMed, and PsycInfo were conducted in April 2011. Methodological reports describing empirically investigated or hypothetical examples of selective inclusion or reporting were eligible for inclusion. Examples were extracted from the reports by one author and categorized by three authors independently. Discrepancies in categorization were resolved via discussion. Results Two hundred ninety reports were included. The majority were empirical method studies (45.5%) or commentaries (29.3%). Eight categories (30 examples) of selective reporting in RCTs, eight categories (27 examples) of selective inclusion in systematic reviews, and eight categories (33 examples) of selective reporting in systematic reviews were collated. Broadly, these describe scenarios in which multiple outcomes or multiple data for the same outcome are available, yet only a subset is included or reported; outcome data are reported with inadequate detail; or outcome data are given different prominence through its placement across or within reports. Conclusion An extensive list of examples of selective inclusion and reporting was collated. Increasing trialists’ and systematic reviewers’ awareness of these examples may minimize their occurrence. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.10.010 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1323794582</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0895435612003460</els_id><sourcerecordid>2931661051</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c514t-fbbd99f9b6f405e833d1f1a01f028b06d5cae5b1b4b719e77cc81cc67d42bd53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkktv1DAQxyMEokvhK1SWEFIvWfyI4-SCqCpeUhEHercce4IcEnvrSQrbT4_DbqnUCyfLM795_qcozhjdMsrqt8N2sKMPsPNbThnPxi1l9EmxYY1qStly9rTY0KaVZSVkfVK8QBwoZYoq-bw44UIIpRq5KW6-mrAnaCGY5CMS-O1xJn1MBGEEO_tbID7YcUEfAzHBkQS7mGYffpDY5w8u44wZISk74-TvwJE5eTPiXxr3OMNkZm8ze-vhF74snvXZC6-O72lx_fHD9eXn8urbpy-XF1ellayay77rXNv2bVf3FZXQCOFYzwxlPeVNR2snrQHZsa7qFGtBKWsbZm2tXMU7J8VpcX5Iu0vxZgGc9eTzmONoAsQFNRNcqLaSDc_o60foEJcUcnMrxZRoarVS9YGyKSIm6PUu-cmkvWZUr5roQd9roldNVnvWJAeeHdMv3QTuX9i9CBl4cwQMWjP2eZPW4wOnBKVKVZl7f-Agry3vMmm0HoIF51OWSrvo_9_Lu0cpVsrnqj9hD_gwt0auqf6-XtB6QIxTKqqaij9Fx8Sk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1321738672</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Many scenarios exist for selective inclusion and reporting of results in randomized trials and systematic reviews</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><creator>Page, Matthew J ; McKenzie, Joanne E ; Forbes, Andrew</creator><creatorcontrib>Page, Matthew J ; McKenzie, Joanne E ; Forbes, Andrew</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Objective To collate and categorize the ways in which selective inclusion and reporting can occur in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews. Study Design and Setting Searches of the Cochrane Methodology Register, PubMed, and PsycInfo were conducted in April 2011. Methodological reports describing empirically investigated or hypothetical examples of selective inclusion or reporting were eligible for inclusion. Examples were extracted from the reports by one author and categorized by three authors independently. Discrepancies in categorization were resolved via discussion. Results Two hundred ninety reports were included. The majority were empirical method studies (45.5%) or commentaries (29.3%). Eight categories (30 examples) of selective reporting in RCTs, eight categories (27 examples) of selective inclusion in systematic reviews, and eight categories (33 examples) of selective reporting in systematic reviews were collated. Broadly, these describe scenarios in which multiple outcomes or multiple data for the same outcome are available, yet only a subset is included or reported; outcome data are reported with inadequate detail; or outcome data are given different prominence through its placement across or within reports. Conclusion An extensive list of examples of selective inclusion and reporting was collated. Increasing trialists’ and systematic reviewers’ awareness of these examples may minimize their occurrence.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0895-4356</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-5921</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.10.010</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23337785</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Australia ; Bias ; Biological and medical sciences ; Clinical trials ; Eligibility Determination ; Epidemiology ; Female ; Humans ; Internal Medicine ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Meta-analysis ; Miscellaneous ; Outcome reporting bias ; Public health. Hygiene ; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine ; Quality Control ; Randomized controlled trials ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - standards ; Reporting ; Research Design ; Research methodology ; Review Literature as Topic ; Selection Bias ; Studies ; Systematic review</subject><ispartof>Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2013-05, Vol.66 (5), p.524-537</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2013 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2014 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Limited May 2013</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c514t-fbbd99f9b6f405e833d1f1a01f028b06d5cae5b1b4b719e77cc81cc67d42bd53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c514t-fbbd99f9b6f405e833d1f1a01f028b06d5cae5b1b4b719e77cc81cc67d42bd53</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1321738672?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,3537,27905,27906,45976,64364,64366,64368,72218</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=27300774$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23337785$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Page, Matthew J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McKenzie, Joanne E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Forbes, Andrew</creatorcontrib><title>Many scenarios exist for selective inclusion and reporting of results in randomized trials and systematic reviews</title><title>Journal of clinical epidemiology</title><addtitle>J Clin Epidemiol</addtitle><description>Abstract Objective To collate and categorize the ways in which selective inclusion and reporting can occur in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews. Study Design and Setting Searches of the Cochrane Methodology Register, PubMed, and PsycInfo were conducted in April 2011. Methodological reports describing empirically investigated or hypothetical examples of selective inclusion or reporting were eligible for inclusion. Examples were extracted from the reports by one author and categorized by three authors independently. Discrepancies in categorization were resolved via discussion. Results Two hundred ninety reports were included. The majority were empirical method studies (45.5%) or commentaries (29.3%). Eight categories (30 examples) of selective reporting in RCTs, eight categories (27 examples) of selective inclusion in systematic reviews, and eight categories (33 examples) of selective reporting in systematic reviews were collated. Broadly, these describe scenarios in which multiple outcomes or multiple data for the same outcome are available, yet only a subset is included or reported; outcome data are reported with inadequate detail; or outcome data are given different prominence through its placement across or within reports. Conclusion An extensive list of examples of selective inclusion and reporting was collated. Increasing trialists’ and systematic reviewers’ awareness of these examples may minimize their occurrence.</description><subject>Australia</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Eligibility Determination</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Miscellaneous</subject><subject>Outcome reporting bias</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</subject><subject>Quality Control</subject><subject>Randomized controlled trials</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - standards</subject><subject>Reporting</subject><subject>Research Design</subject><subject>Research methodology</subject><subject>Review Literature as Topic</subject><subject>Selection Bias</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><issn>0895-4356</issn><issn>1878-5921</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkktv1DAQxyMEokvhK1SWEFIvWfyI4-SCqCpeUhEHercce4IcEnvrSQrbT4_DbqnUCyfLM795_qcozhjdMsrqt8N2sKMPsPNbThnPxi1l9EmxYY1qStly9rTY0KaVZSVkfVK8QBwoZYoq-bw44UIIpRq5KW6-mrAnaCGY5CMS-O1xJn1MBGEEO_tbID7YcUEfAzHBkQS7mGYffpDY5w8u44wZISk74-TvwJE5eTPiXxr3OMNkZm8ze-vhF74snvXZC6-O72lx_fHD9eXn8urbpy-XF1ellayay77rXNv2bVf3FZXQCOFYzwxlPeVNR2snrQHZsa7qFGtBKWsbZm2tXMU7J8VpcX5Iu0vxZgGc9eTzmONoAsQFNRNcqLaSDc_o60foEJcUcnMrxZRoarVS9YGyKSIm6PUu-cmkvWZUr5roQd9roldNVnvWJAeeHdMv3QTuX9i9CBl4cwQMWjP2eZPW4wOnBKVKVZl7f-Agry3vMmm0HoIF51OWSrvo_9_Lu0cpVsrnqj9hD_gwt0auqf6-XtB6QIxTKqqaij9Fx8Sk</recordid><startdate>20130501</startdate><enddate>20130501</enddate><creator>Page, Matthew J</creator><creator>McKenzie, Joanne E</creator><creator>Forbes, Andrew</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130501</creationdate><title>Many scenarios exist for selective inclusion and reporting of results in randomized trials and systematic reviews</title><author>Page, Matthew J ; McKenzie, Joanne E ; Forbes, Andrew</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c514t-fbbd99f9b6f405e833d1f1a01f028b06d5cae5b1b4b719e77cc81cc67d42bd53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Australia</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Eligibility Determination</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Miscellaneous</topic><topic>Outcome reporting bias</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</topic><topic>Quality Control</topic><topic>Randomized controlled trials</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - standards</topic><topic>Reporting</topic><topic>Research Design</topic><topic>Research methodology</topic><topic>Review Literature as Topic</topic><topic>Selection Bias</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Page, Matthew J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McKenzie, Joanne E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Forbes, Andrew</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of clinical epidemiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Page, Matthew J</au><au>McKenzie, Joanne E</au><au>Forbes, Andrew</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Many scenarios exist for selective inclusion and reporting of results in randomized trials and systematic reviews</atitle><jtitle>Journal of clinical epidemiology</jtitle><addtitle>J Clin Epidemiol</addtitle><date>2013-05-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>66</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>524</spage><epage>537</epage><pages>524-537</pages><issn>0895-4356</issn><eissn>1878-5921</eissn><abstract>Abstract Objective To collate and categorize the ways in which selective inclusion and reporting can occur in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews. Study Design and Setting Searches of the Cochrane Methodology Register, PubMed, and PsycInfo were conducted in April 2011. Methodological reports describing empirically investigated or hypothetical examples of selective inclusion or reporting were eligible for inclusion. Examples were extracted from the reports by one author and categorized by three authors independently. Discrepancies in categorization were resolved via discussion. Results Two hundred ninety reports were included. The majority were empirical method studies (45.5%) or commentaries (29.3%). Eight categories (30 examples) of selective reporting in RCTs, eight categories (27 examples) of selective inclusion in systematic reviews, and eight categories (33 examples) of selective reporting in systematic reviews were collated. Broadly, these describe scenarios in which multiple outcomes or multiple data for the same outcome are available, yet only a subset is included or reported; outcome data are reported with inadequate detail; or outcome data are given different prominence through its placement across or within reports. Conclusion An extensive list of examples of selective inclusion and reporting was collated. Increasing trialists’ and systematic reviewers’ awareness of these examples may minimize their occurrence.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>23337785</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.10.010</doi><tpages>14</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0895-4356 |
| ispartof | Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2013-05, Vol.66 (5), p.524-537 |
| issn | 0895-4356 1878-5921 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1323794582 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals; ProQuest Central UK/Ireland |
| subjects | Australia Bias Biological and medical sciences Clinical trials Eligibility Determination Epidemiology Female Humans Internal Medicine Male Medical sciences Meta-analysis Miscellaneous Outcome reporting bias Public health. Hygiene Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine Quality Control Randomized controlled trials Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - standards Reporting Research Design Research methodology Review Literature as Topic Selection Bias Studies Systematic review |
| title | Many scenarios exist for selective inclusion and reporting of results in randomized trials and systematic reviews |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-18T03%3A41%3A01IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Many%20scenarios%20exist%20for%20selective%20inclusion%20and%20reporting%20of%20results%20in%20randomized%20trials%20and%20systematic%20reviews&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20clinical%20epidemiology&rft.au=Page,%20Matthew%20J&rft.date=2013-05-01&rft.volume=66&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=524&rft.epage=537&rft.pages=524-537&rft.issn=0895-4356&rft.eissn=1878-5921&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.10.010&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2931661051%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1321738672&rft_id=info:pmid/23337785&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S0895435612003460&rfr_iscdi=true |