Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37252374›Full record

ArticleCampbell systematic reviews2023

PROTOCOL: Assessment of outcome reporting bias in studies included in Campbell systematic reviews.

Julia H Littell, Dennis M Gorman, Jeffrey C Valentine, Therese D Pigott

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Campbell systematic reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Is any research ever truly bias-free? The myth of objectivity in science.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Julia H LittellGraduate School of Social Work and Social Research Bryn Mawr College Bryn Mawr Pennsylvania USA.
Dennis M GormanDepartment of Epidemiology & Biostatistics and School of Public Health Texas A&M University College Station Texas USA.
Jeffrey C ValentineDepartment Counseling and Human Development University of Louisville Louisville Kentucky USA.
Therese D PigottSchool of Public Health Georgia State University Atlanta Georgia USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: To identify methods used to assess the risk of outcome reporting bias (ORB) in studies included in recent Campbell systematic reviews of intervention effects. The review will answer the following questions: What proportion of recent Campbell reviews included assessment of ORB? How did recent reviews define levels of risk of ORB (what categories, labels, and definitions did they use)? To what extent and how did these reviews use study protocols as sources of data on ORB? To what extent and how did reviews document reasons for judgments about risk of ORB? To what extent and how did reviews assess the inter-rater reliability of ORB ratings? To what extent and how were issues of ORB considered in the review's abstract, plain language summary, and conclusions?

Identifiers

PMID37252374
PMCPMC10210598

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.