ArticlePloS one2018
Patient-important outcomes in systematic reviews: Poor quality of evidence.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic criteria and outcome measures in randomized clinical trials on carpal tunnel syndrome: a systematic review.Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina · 2023Pooled it
- Effectiveness and Stakeholder Views of Community-Based Allied Health on Acute Care Utilization: A Mixed Methods Review.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Review
- Patients' perspective on supposedly patient-relevant process and outcome parameters: a cross-sectional survey within the 'PRO patients study'.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Patient-important outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials of pharmacologic treatments for COVID-19: a protocol of a META-epidemiological study.Systematic reviews · 2021Article
- Triage of General Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Procedures During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Results From a National Delphi Consensus Panel.Techniques and innovations in gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2021Article
- Patient-relevant outcomes: what are we talking about? A scoping review to improve conceptual clarity.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- A Systematic Review of Medication Adherence Thresholds Dependent of Clinical Outcomes.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCochrane reviewers are strongly encouraged to evaluate the quality of evidence for the most important outcomes by using the GRADE approach and to report these results in a Summary of Findings (SoF) table. We aimed to assess whether outcomes reported in the SoF table of Cochrane reviews could be considered patient-important outcomes (PIOs) and the quality of the available evidence for these outcomes.
methodsWe performed a methodological review of Cochrane reviews published between March 2011 and September 2014. For a random sample of Cochrane reviews reporting a SoF table, we extracted all outcomes reported in this table and evaluated whether they could be considered PIOs (i.e., mortality, other clinical events, adverse events, function, pain, quality of life and therapeutic decisions). Then, we collected the quality of evidence for every outcome in these SoF tables.
resultsWe included 290 reviews issued by 47 of the 53 Cochrane Review Groups. Every SoF table included a median of 5 outcomes, for a total of 1414 outcomes; 1089 (77%) could be considered PIOs. Almost all reviews (n = 278, 96%) included at least one PIO in their SoF table. The quality of evidence for the outcomes was high for 12% (n = 168), moderate for 28% (n = 402) and low or very low for 45% (n = 640). Less than one quarter of reviews (n = 63) included at least one PIO with high-quality evidence that favoured a benefit of the experimental intervention evaluated in half of them (n = 34 reviews).
conclusionsMany outcomes reported in the SoF table of recent Cochrane reviews can be considered PIOs. However, the quality of available evidence remains limited for these outcomes.
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.