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

Julia H. Littell · Dennis M. Gorman · Jeffrey C. Valentine · Terri Pigott

10 citations0/0 files storedCampbell Systematic Reviews

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 Statistical Methods in Epidemiology Delphi Technique in Research

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?

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 — 10 citations exist upstream.

References

2021The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews 2019RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials 2016ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions 2021PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews 2005Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis 2008Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias 2009How Many Studies Do You Need?2007H.R. Rothstein, A.J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.) (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. NewYork: Wiley, xvii+356 p. US$100.00. ISBN: 0-470-87014-1.

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.