ArticleBMJ open2013
Selective reporting of outcomes in randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of cystic fibrosis.
Article in BMJ open, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Selective outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials including participants with stroke or transient ischaemic attack: A systematic review.European stroke journal · 2023Pooled it
- Estimating the prevalence of discrepancies between study registrations and publications: a systematic review and meta-analyses.BMJ open · 2023Pooled it
- PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Guideline
- Treatments for preventing recurrence of infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa in people with cystic fibrosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Managing the incidence of selective reporting bias: a survey of Cochrane review groups.Systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- An investigation of discrepancies in outcome reporting and selective reporting bias in interrupted time series studies of health interventions: a methodological study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Psychological interventions for improving adherence to inhaled therapies in people with cystic fibrosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Review
- Article
- The Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) statement: a checklist with explanation and elaboration guideline for reporting randomised trials that use an adaptive design.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2020Article
- Article
- Article
- Outcome choice and definition in systematic reviews leads to few eligible studies included in meta-analyses: a case study.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- Identifying a Core Domain Set to Assess Psoriasis in Clinical Trials.JAMA dermatology · 2018Article
- Enhancing primary reports of randomized controlled trials: Three most common challenges and suggested solutions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018Review
- Article
- Exercise reduces depressive symptoms in adults with arthritis: Evidential value.World journal of rheumatology · 2016Article
- Rethinking the assessment of risk of bias due to selective reporting: a cross-sectional study.Systematic reviews · 2016Review
- Evidential Value That Exercise Improves BMI z-Score in Overweight and Obese Children and Adolescents.BioMed research international · 2015Article
- Discrepancies in Outcome Reporting Exist Between Protocols and Published Oral Health Cochrane Systematic Reviews.PloS one · 2015Article
- Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOutcome reporting bias (ORB) in randomised trials has been identified as a threat to the validity of systematic reviews. Previous work highlighting this problem is limited to considering a single primary review outcome. The aim of this study was to assess ORB across all efficacy outcomes in the Cochrane systematic reviews of cystic fibrosis.
methodsSystematic reviews of interventions for cystic fibrosis published on the Cochrane Library by the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group before 2010 were assessed for discrepancies in outcomes between review protocol and full review. ORB in eligible trials was also assessed for all efficacy review outcomes. Two authors independently classified each outcome using a nine-point classification system developed by the Outcome Reporting Bias In Trials study. These classifications were used to inform the assessment of the risk of bias for selective outcome reporting for each trial.
results-46 Cochrane cystic fibrosis systematic reviews were included. The median number of primary outcomes, number of trials and participants per trial in the reviews were 3 (IQR 2, 3), 4 (IQR 2, 8) and 21 (IQR 14, 41), respectively. 18 reviews (39%, 18/46) had a discrepancy in outcomes between protocol and full review. 37 reviews were eligible to be included in the ORB assessment. When considering review primary outcomes and all review outcomes, ORB was suspected in at least one trial in 86% and 100%, respectively.
conclusionsAssessment of ORB within a systematic review of a single primary outcome underestimates the risk of ORB in comparison to the assessment of multiple primary and secondary outcomes. ORB in trials is highly prevalent within systematic reviews of cystic fibrosis when assessed across all outcomes. This could be reduced by the development of a core outcome set for trials and systematic reviews in cystic fibrosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.