PROTOCOL: Assessment of Outcome Reporting Bias in Studies Included in Campbell Systematic Reviews

Overview

Journal Campbell Syst Rev

Date 2023 May 30

PMID 37252374

Authors

Julia H Littell

Dennis M Gorman

Jeffrey C Valentine

Therese D Pigott

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

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?

Citing Articles

The efficacy of topical 8% capsaicin patches for the treatment of postsurgical neuropathic pain: a systematic review.

Goodwin B, Mitchell J, Major E, Podwojniak A, Brancaccio H, Rusinak K Pain Manag. 2024; 14(10-11):591-598.

PMID: 39589498 PMC: 11622774. DOI: 10.1080/17581869.2024.2433931.

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

Littell J, Gorman D, Valentine J, Pigott T Campbell Syst Rev. 2023; 19(2):e1332.

PMID: 37252374 PMC: 10210598. DOI: 10.1002/cl2.1332.

References

Smyth R, Kirkham J, Jacoby A, Altman D, Gamble C, Williamson P . Frequency and reasons for outcome reporting bias in clinical trials: interviews with trialists. BMJ. 2011; 342:c7153. PMC: 3016816. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c7153. View

Saini P, Loke Y, Gamble C, Altman D, Williamson P, Kirkham J . Selective reporting bias of harm outcomes within studies: findings from a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ. 2014; 349:g6501. PMC: 4240443. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g6501. View

Sterne J, Hernan M, Reeves B, Savovic J, Berkman N, Viswanathan M . ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016; 355:i4919. PMC: 5062054. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i4919. View

Wang X, Welch V, Li M, Yao L, Littell J, Li H . The methodological and reporting characteristics of Campbell reviews: A systematic review. Campbell Syst Rev. 2023; 17(1):e1134. PMC: 8356304. DOI: 10.1002/cl2.1134. View

Sterne J, Savovic J, Page M, Elbers R, Blencowe N, Boutron I . RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019; 366:l4898. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l4898. View

Dwan K, Altman D, Arnaiz J, Bloom J, Chan A, Cronin E . Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One. 2008; 3(8):e3081. PMC: 2518111. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003081. View

Taylor N, Gorman D . Registration and primary outcome reporting in behavioral health trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022; 22(1):41. PMC: 8818241. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-021-01500-w. View

Jeyaraman M, Rabbani R, Copstein L, Robson R, Al-Yousif N, Pollock M . Methodologically rigorous risk of bias tools for nonrandomized studies had low reliability and high evaluator burden. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020; 128:140-147. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.033. View

Boden C, Bidonde J, Busch A . Gaps exist in the current guidance on the use of randomized controlled trial study protocols in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017; 85:59-69. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.04.021. View

10.

Song F, Parekh-Bhurke S, Hooper L, Loke Y, Ryder J, Sutton A . Extent of publication bias in different categories of research cohorts: a meta-analysis of empirical studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009; 9:79. PMC: 2789098. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-9-79. View

11.

Page M, McKenzie J, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Hoffmann T, Mulrow C . The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372:n71. PMC: 8005924. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n71. View

12.

Chalmers I . Underreporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA. 1990; 263(10):1405-8. View

13.

Minozzi S, Cinquini M, Gianola S, Gonzalez-Lorenzo M, Banzi R . The revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) showed low interrater reliability and challenges in its application. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020; 126:37-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.06.015. View

14.

Dwan K, Gamble C, Kolamunnage-Dona R, Mohammed S, Powell C, Williamson P . Assessing the potential for outcome reporting bias in a review: a tutorial. Trials. 2010; 11:52. PMC: 2888817. DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-11-52. View

15.

Lamberink H, Vinkers C, Lancee M, Damen J, Bouter L, Otte W . Clinical Trial Registration Patterns and Changes in Primary Outcomes of Randomized Clinical Trials From 2002 to 2017. JAMA Intern Med. 2022; 182(7):779-782. PMC: 9112139. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.1551. View

16.

Schwarzer G, Carpenter J, Rucker G . Empirical evaluation suggests Copas selection model preferable to trim-and-fill method for selection bias in meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 63(3):282-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.05.008. View

17.

Goldacre B, Drysdale H, Dale A, Milosevic I, Slade E, Hartley P . COMPare: a prospective cohort study correcting and monitoring 58 misreported trials in real time. Trials. 2019; 20(1):118. PMC: 6375128. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-019-3173-2. View

18.

Chan A, Pello A, Kitchen J, Axentiev A, I Virtanen J, Liu A . Association of Trial Registration With Reporting of Primary Outcomes in Protocols and Publications. JAMA. 2017; 318(17):1709-1711. PMC: 5818784. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2017.13001. View

19.

Littell J, Gorman D . The Campbell Collaboration's systematic review of school-based anti-bullying interventions does not meet mandatory methodological standards. Syst Rev. 2022; 11(1):145. PMC: 9290269. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-022-01998-1. View

20.

Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson P, Kirkham J . Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias - an updated review. PLoS One. 2013; 8(7):e66844. PMC: 3702538. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066844. View