Around ten percent of most recent Cochrane reviews included outcomes in their literature search strategy and were associated with potentially exaggerated results: A research-on-research study
To assess the proportion of the recent Cochrane reviews that included outcomes in their literature search strategy, how often they acknowledged these limitations, and how qualitatively different the results of outcomes included and not included in the search strategy were. We identified all the Coch...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of clinical epidemiology 2022-01, Vol.141, p.74-81 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 81 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | |
| container_start_page | 74 |
| container_title | Journal of clinical epidemiology |
| container_volume | 141 |
| creator | Tsujimoto, Yasushi Tsutsumi, Yusuke Kataoka, Yuki Banno, Masahiro Furukawa, Toshi A. |
| description | To assess the proportion of the recent Cochrane reviews that included outcomes in their literature search strategy, how often they acknowledged these limitations, and how qualitatively different the results of outcomes included and not included in the search strategy were.
We identified all the Cochrane reviews of the interventions published in 2020 that used a search strategy connecting outcome terms with “AND.” Reviews were defined as acknowledging the limitations of searching for outcomes if they mentioned them in the discussion. We compared the characteristics of outcomes included and not included in the search strategy.
Of the 523 Cochrane reviews published in 2020, 51 (9.8%) included outcomes in their search strategy. Only one review acknowledged it as a limitation. Forty-seven (92%) assessed outcomes not included in the search strategy. Outcomes included in the search strategies tended to include a larger number of studies and show their effects in favor of the intervention.
Around ten percent of the recent Cochrane reviews included outcomes in their search, which may have resulted in more outcomes significantly in favor of the intervention. Reviewers should be more explicit in acknowledging the potential implications of searching for outcomes. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.08.030 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2569378076</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0895435621002778</els_id><sourcerecordid>2569378076</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c488t-5f0a1de6b7af00993a4352927fbef57fefe111b3f2faeeaa2ae08d77e2fb6c1a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU1v1DAQhiMEotvCX6gsceGSYDsfdjixWkFBqsQFzpbjjHcdJfFiO5T9dfw1Jt0uBy6cPB_vvGPNk2W3jBaMsubdUAxmdDMcXcEpZwWVBS3ps2zDpJB53XL2PNtQ2dZ5VdbNVXYd40ApE1TUL7OrsqpExVi1yX5vg1_mniSYyRGCgTkRb8nkYyIBHtOdN4egZ8D8p4OHSNxsxqWHnvglGT_BWiHpAC6Q0SUIOi0BSAQdzIHEhDnsT0TjlgfAho7RG4dFzF06kKPH5cnpcTwR-KX3-9UBmwHiMqb4nmzX8NEt93N-idF56U-vshdWjxFeP7032fdPH7_tPuf3X---7Lb3uamkTHltqWY9NJ3QltK2LTWehbdc2A5sLSxYYIx1peVWA2jNNVDZCwHcdo1hurzJ3p59j8H_WCAmNbloYBzxMH6JitdNWwpJRYPSN_9IB7-EGX-neFNxZMJbiarmrDLBxxjAqmNwkw4nxahaEatBXRCrFbGiUiFiHLx9sl-6Cfq_YxemKPhwFgDeA4kFFY2D2UDvkGhSvXf_2_EHcGbBng</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2642895298</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Around ten percent of most recent Cochrane reviews included outcomes in their literature search strategy and were associated with potentially exaggerated results: A research-on-research study</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><creator>Tsujimoto, Yasushi ; Tsutsumi, Yusuke ; Kataoka, Yuki ; Banno, Masahiro ; Furukawa, Toshi A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Tsujimoto, Yasushi ; Tsutsumi, Yusuke ; Kataoka, Yuki ; Banno, Masahiro ; Furukawa, Toshi A.</creatorcontrib><description>To assess the proportion of the recent Cochrane reviews that included outcomes in their literature search strategy, how often they acknowledged these limitations, and how qualitatively different the results of outcomes included and not included in the search strategy were.
We identified all the Cochrane reviews of the interventions published in 2020 that used a search strategy connecting outcome terms with “AND.” Reviews were defined as acknowledging the limitations of searching for outcomes if they mentioned them in the discussion. We compared the characteristics of outcomes included and not included in the search strategy.
Of the 523 Cochrane reviews published in 2020, 51 (9.8%) included outcomes in their search strategy. Only one review acknowledged it as a limitation. Forty-seven (92%) assessed outcomes not included in the search strategy. Outcomes included in the search strategies tended to include a larger number of studies and show their effects in favor of the intervention.
Around ten percent of the recent Cochrane reviews included outcomes in their search, which may have resulted in more outcomes significantly in favor of the intervention. Reviewers should be more explicit in acknowledging the potential implications of searching for outcomes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0895-4356</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-5921</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.08.030</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34474114</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Bias ; Epidemiology ; Meta-analysis ; meta-epidemiology ; publication bias ; Reviews ; Search methods ; search strategy ; selective outcome reporting ; Systematic review</subject><ispartof>Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2022-01, Vol.141, p.74-81</ispartof><rights>2021 The Authors</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>2021. The Authors</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c488t-5f0a1de6b7af00993a4352927fbef57fefe111b3f2faeeaa2ae08d77e2fb6c1a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c488t-5f0a1de6b7af00993a4352927fbef57fefe111b3f2faeeaa2ae08d77e2fb6c1a3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7982-5213 ; 0000-0002-2539-1031 ; 0000-0002-9160-0241 ; 0000-0003-2159-3776</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2642895298?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>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34474114$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Tsujimoto, Yasushi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tsutsumi, Yusuke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kataoka, Yuki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Banno, Masahiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Furukawa, Toshi A.</creatorcontrib><title>Around ten percent of most recent Cochrane reviews included outcomes in their literature search strategy and were associated with potentially exaggerated results: A research-on-research study</title><title>Journal of clinical epidemiology</title><addtitle>J Clin Epidemiol</addtitle><description>To assess the proportion of the recent Cochrane reviews that included outcomes in their literature search strategy, how often they acknowledged these limitations, and how qualitatively different the results of outcomes included and not included in the search strategy were.
We identified all the Cochrane reviews of the interventions published in 2020 that used a search strategy connecting outcome terms with “AND.” Reviews were defined as acknowledging the limitations of searching for outcomes if they mentioned them in the discussion. We compared the characteristics of outcomes included and not included in the search strategy.
Of the 523 Cochrane reviews published in 2020, 51 (9.8%) included outcomes in their search strategy. Only one review acknowledged it as a limitation. Forty-seven (92%) assessed outcomes not included in the search strategy. Outcomes included in the search strategies tended to include a larger number of studies and show their effects in favor of the intervention.
Around ten percent of the recent Cochrane reviews included outcomes in their search, which may have resulted in more outcomes significantly in favor of the intervention. Reviewers should be more explicit in acknowledging the potential implications of searching for outcomes.</description><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>meta-epidemiology</subject><subject>publication bias</subject><subject>Reviews</subject><subject>Search methods</subject><subject>search strategy</subject><subject>selective outcome reporting</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><issn>0895-4356</issn><issn>1878-5921</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><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>eNqFkU1v1DAQhiMEotvCX6gsceGSYDsfdjixWkFBqsQFzpbjjHcdJfFiO5T9dfw1Jt0uBy6cPB_vvGPNk2W3jBaMsubdUAxmdDMcXcEpZwWVBS3ps2zDpJB53XL2PNtQ2dZ5VdbNVXYd40ApE1TUL7OrsqpExVi1yX5vg1_mniSYyRGCgTkRb8nkYyIBHtOdN4egZ8D8p4OHSNxsxqWHnvglGT_BWiHpAC6Q0SUIOi0BSAQdzIHEhDnsT0TjlgfAho7RG4dFzF06kKPH5cnpcTwR-KX3-9UBmwHiMqb4nmzX8NEt93N-idF56U-vshdWjxFeP7032fdPH7_tPuf3X---7Lb3uamkTHltqWY9NJ3QltK2LTWehbdc2A5sLSxYYIx1peVWA2jNNVDZCwHcdo1hurzJ3p59j8H_WCAmNbloYBzxMH6JitdNWwpJRYPSN_9IB7-EGX-neFNxZMJbiarmrDLBxxjAqmNwkw4nxahaEatBXRCrFbGiUiFiHLx9sl-6Cfq_YxemKPhwFgDeA4kFFY2D2UDvkGhSvXf_2_EHcGbBng</recordid><startdate>202201</startdate><enddate>202201</enddate><creator>Tsujimoto, Yasushi</creator><creator>Tsutsumi, Yusuke</creator><creator>Kataoka, Yuki</creator><creator>Banno, Masahiro</creator><creator>Furukawa, Toshi A.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</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><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7982-5213</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2539-1031</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9160-0241</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2159-3776</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202201</creationdate><title>Around ten percent of most recent Cochrane reviews included outcomes in their literature search strategy and were associated with potentially exaggerated results: A research-on-research study</title><author>Tsujimoto, Yasushi ; Tsutsumi, Yusuke ; Kataoka, Yuki ; Banno, Masahiro ; Furukawa, Toshi A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c488t-5f0a1de6b7af00993a4352927fbef57fefe111b3f2faeeaa2ae08d77e2fb6c1a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>meta-epidemiology</topic><topic>publication bias</topic><topic>Reviews</topic><topic>Search methods</topic><topic>search strategy</topic><topic>selective outcome reporting</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Tsujimoto, Yasushi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tsutsumi, Yusuke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kataoka, Yuki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Banno, Masahiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Furukawa, Toshi A.</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</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>Tsujimoto, Yasushi</au><au>Tsutsumi, Yusuke</au><au>Kataoka, Yuki</au><au>Banno, Masahiro</au><au>Furukawa, Toshi A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Around ten percent of most recent Cochrane reviews included outcomes in their literature search strategy and were associated with potentially exaggerated results: A research-on-research study</atitle><jtitle>Journal of clinical epidemiology</jtitle><addtitle>J Clin Epidemiol</addtitle><date>2022-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>141</volume><spage>74</spage><epage>81</epage><pages>74-81</pages><issn>0895-4356</issn><eissn>1878-5921</eissn><abstract>To assess the proportion of the recent Cochrane reviews that included outcomes in their literature search strategy, how often they acknowledged these limitations, and how qualitatively different the results of outcomes included and not included in the search strategy were.
We identified all the Cochrane reviews of the interventions published in 2020 that used a search strategy connecting outcome terms with “AND.” Reviews were defined as acknowledging the limitations of searching for outcomes if they mentioned them in the discussion. We compared the characteristics of outcomes included and not included in the search strategy.
Of the 523 Cochrane reviews published in 2020, 51 (9.8%) included outcomes in their search strategy. Only one review acknowledged it as a limitation. Forty-seven (92%) assessed outcomes not included in the search strategy. Outcomes included in the search strategies tended to include a larger number of studies and show their effects in favor of the intervention.
Around ten percent of the recent Cochrane reviews included outcomes in their search, which may have resulted in more outcomes significantly in favor of the intervention. Reviewers should be more explicit in acknowledging the potential implications of searching for outcomes.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>34474114</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.08.030</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7982-5213</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2539-1031</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9160-0241</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2159-3776</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0895-4356 |
| ispartof | Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2022-01, Vol.141, p.74-81 |
| issn | 0895-4356 1878-5921 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2569378076 |
| source | Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals; ProQuest Central UK/Ireland |
| subjects | Bias Epidemiology Meta-analysis meta-epidemiology publication bias Reviews Search methods search strategy selective outcome reporting Systematic review |
| title | Around ten percent of most recent Cochrane reviews included outcomes in their literature search strategy and were associated with potentially exaggerated results: A research-on-research study |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-19T18%3A25%3A50IST&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=Around%20ten%20percent%20of%20most%20recent%20Cochrane%20reviews%20included%20outcomes%20in%20their%20literature%20search%20strategy%20and%20were%20associated%20with%20potentially%20exaggerated%20results:%20A%20research-on-research%20study&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20clinical%20epidemiology&rft.au=Tsujimoto,%20Yasushi&rft.date=2022-01&rft.volume=141&rft.spage=74&rft.epage=81&rft.pages=74-81&rft.issn=0895-4356&rft.eissn=1878-5921&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.08.030&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2569378076%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=2642895298&rft_id=info:pmid/34474114&rft_els_id=S0895435621002778&rfr_iscdi=true |