SynthesisPloS one2014
Outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews addressing four common eye conditions: an evaluation of completeness and comparability.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 8 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
61 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- High Outcome-Reporting Bias in Randomized-Controlled Trials of Acupuncture for Cancer Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Epidemiological Study.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Sex as a prognostic factor for mortality in adults with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Quality of reporting of outcomes in trials of therapeutic interventions for pressure injuries in adults: a systematic methodological survey.International wound journal · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Missed opportunity from randomised controlled trials of medical interventions for open-angle glaucoma.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2017Pooled it
- Topical medication instillation techniques for glaucoma.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery versus conventional phacoemulsification for cataract: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Scientific reports · 2015Pooled it
- Trial
- Assessing uptake of the macular degeneration core outcome set in clinical trials: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2025Observational
- Article
- Article
- Concordance between clinical trial data use request proposals and corresponding publications: A cross-sectional study.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Completeness and consistency of primary outcome reporting in COVID-19 publications in the early pandemic phase: a descriptive study.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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
Abstract
introductionChoice of outcomes is critical for clinical trialists and systematic reviewers. It is currently unclear how systematic reviewers choose and pre-specify outcomes for systematic reviews. Our objective was to assess the completeness of pre-specification and comparability of outcomes in all Cochrane reviews addressing four common eye conditions.
methodsWe examined protocols for all Cochrane reviews as of June 2013 that addressed glaucoma, cataract, age-related macular degeneration (AMD), and diabetic retinopathy (DR). We assessed completeness and comparability for each outcome that was named in ≥ 25% of protocols on those topics. We defined a completely-specified outcome as including information about five elements: domain, specific measurement, specific metric, method of aggregation, and time-points. For each domain, we assessed comparability in how individual elements were specified across protocols.
resultsWe identified 57 protocols addressing glaucoma (22), cataract (16), AMD (15), and DR (4). We assessed completeness and comparability for five outcome domains: quality-of-life, visual acuity, intraocular pressure, disease progression, and contrast sensitivity. Overall, these five outcome domains appeared 145 times (instances). Only 15/145 instances (10.3%) were completely specified (all five elements) (median = three elements per outcome). Primary outcomes were more completely specified than non-primary (median = four versus two elements). Quality-of-life was least completely specified (median = one element). Due to largely incomplete outcome pre-specification, conclusive assessment of comparability in outcome usage across the various protocols per condition was not possible. DISCUSSION: Outcome pre-specification was largely incomplete; we encourage systematic reviewers to consider all five elements. This will indicate the importance of complete specification to clinical trialists, on whose work systematic reviewers depend, and will indirectly encourage comparable outcome choice to reviewers undertaking related research questions. Complete pre-specification could improve efficiency and reduce bias in data abstraction and analysis during a systematic review. Ultimately, more completely specified and comparable outcomes could make systematic reviews more useful to decision-makers.
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.