Outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews related to wound care: An investigation into prespecification

Zhenmi Liu · Ian Jude Saldanha · David J. Margolis · Jo C Dumville · Nicky A Cullum

18 citations0/0 files storedWound Repair and Regeneration

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Clinical practice guidelines implementation Delphi Technique in Research

Abstract

The choice of outcomes in systematic reviews of the effects of interventions is crucial, dictating which data are included and analyzed. Full prespecification of outcomes in systematic reviews can reduce the risk of outcome reporting bias but, this issue has not been widely investigated. This study is the first to analyze the nature and specification of outcomes used in Cochrane Wounds (CW) systematic reviews. Adequacy of outcome specification was assessed using a five-element framework of key outcome components: outcome domain, specific measurement, specific metric, method of aggregation, and time points. We identified all CW review titles associated with a protocol published on or before October 1, 2014. We categorized all reported outcome domains and recorded whether they were primary or secondary outcomes. We explored outcome specification for outcome domains reported in 25% or more of the eligible protocols. We included 106 protocols and 126 outcome domains; 24.6% (31/126) domains were used as primary outcomes at least once. Eight domains were reported in ≥25% of protocols: wound healing, quality of life, costs, adverse events, resource use, pain, wound infection, and mortality. Wound healing was the most completely specified outcome domain (median 3; interquartile range [IQR] =1-5) along with resource use (median 3; IQR 2-4). Quality of life (median 1; IQR 1-3), pain (median 1; IQR 1-3), and costs (median 1; IQR 1-4) were the least completely specified outcome domains. Outcomes are frequently poorly prespecified and the elements of metric, aggregation, and time-point are rarely adequately specified. We strongly recommend that reviewers be more vigilant about prespecifying outcomes, using the five-element framework. Better prespecification is likely to improve review quality by reducing bias in data abstraction and analysis, and by reducing subjectivity in the decision of which outcomes to extract; it may also improve outcome specification in clinical trial design and reporting.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 18 citations exist upstream.

References

2004Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials 2012Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider 2010Reporting and Interpretation of Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Nonsignificant Results for Primary Outcomes 2014Developing Core Outcome Measurement Sets for Clinical Trials: OMERACT Filter 2.0 2007OMERACT: An international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology 2014Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: A Systematic Review 2014Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative: protocol for an international Delphi study to achieve consensus on how to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a ‘core outcome set’2014Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.