Assessment of Selective Reporting Biases in Studies Included in Campbell Systematic Reviews: A Systematic Review.

Background: Critical appraisal of the studies included in a systematic review is essential to ensure that results of the review are properly interpreted. Critical appraisal is also one of the most difficult steps in research reviews. Structured risk of bias (ROB) tools can facilitate critical appraisal, but these tools vary in content and structure, and there are unresolved issues in applications of these tools. Assessment of risk of reporting biases, such as outcome reporting bias (ORB) and analysis reporting bias (ARB), is especially difficult, given the lack of availability of the raw materials (such as prospectively registered protocols or analysis plans) needed to properly assess the risk of selective reporting and selective non-reporting of outcomes and analyses. Objectives: To identify methods used in recent Campbell systematic reviews of intervention effects to assess the risk of selective reporting biases in included studies. Search Methods: We searched the Campbell Library website, using a structured online form developed for this purpose, with filters for publication dates (all dates in 2020 through April 2023) and type of document (completed reviews only). Selection Criteria: We included systematic reviews (SRs) of primary studies of intervention effects published in Campbell Systematic Reviews between 1 January 2020 and 30 April 2023. Data Collection and Analysis: Of the 59 SRs published from 2020 through early 2023, 51 were eligible for our review. Forty-nine of these reviews included relevant studies of intervention effects. From these 49 reviews, we extracted data on methods used to assess risk of reporting biases (ORB and ARB), broader risk of bias (ROB) or study quality assessments, and adherence to 12 mandatory methodological standards. Data extraction and coding were performed in duplicate, by pairs of team members who worked independently, and any discrepancies were resolved by coders or by the review team. Results were compiled in a spreadsheet, which was used to generate tables, graphics, and a narrative summary. Main Results: Reporting biases were defined and assessed in diverse and sometimes idiosyncratic ways in recent Campbell systematic reviews of intervention effects. Most (40 of 49) reviews conducted some structured assessment of reporting biases, but many did not report results of these assessments. Explanation and documentation of ORB and ARB assessments was missing in more than half (28) of the reviews. Only 12 reviews provided full documentation for their ORB/ARB assessments.Overall, we found that reviewers' descriptions of their assessments of reporting biases were often incomplete and inconsistent across studies. In many cases, these assessment practices did not reflect current understanding of the prevalence of selective reporting and ways in which these biases can undermine the validity of and confidence in results of research reviews. This observation is consistent with the fact that most reviews did not consider the potential impacts of risks of bias on the credibility of their results.None of the recent reviews appeared to meet all (12) of the mandatory methodological standards we assessed. On average, these reviews failed to meet 4.9 of these standards (SD = 2.3); almost three-quarters (35) of the reviews failed to meet four or more standards. Authors’ Conclusions: Recent Campbell reviews did not consistently appraise or document risks of reporting biases in the studies they included. Assessment of risk of reporting biases is difficult, given the lack of availability of prospective, public protocols or analysis plans for most studies.Reviewers' failure to adhere to Campbell's mandatory methodological standards and editors' apparent inability to enforce these standards can be understood as functions of the contexts in which systematic reviews are highly desirable, highly cited, and under-resourced.We provide a decision tree to guide reviewers' assessments of reporting bias, along with nine recommendations for improving these practices in systematic reviews of intervention effects. Our recommendations include more deliberate use of eligibility criteria to eliminate studies that cannot provide valid answers to review questions, thorough documentation of reviewers' assessment processes and ROB ratings, and explicit use of ROB ratings in interpretation of results.