Outcome choice and definition in systematic reviews leads to few eligible studies included in meta-analyses: a case study
Published 2020 View Full Article
- Home
- Publications
- Publication Search
- Publication Details
Title
Outcome choice and definition in systematic reviews leads to few eligible studies included in meta-analyses: a case study
Authors
Keywords
-
Journal
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages -
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Online
2020-02-12
DOI
10.1186/s12874-020-0898-2
References
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Related references
Note: Only part of the references are listed.- Outcome reporting bias in trials: a methodological approach for assessment and adjustment in systematic reviews
- (2018) Jamie J Kirkham et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
- Choosing Core Outcomes for Use in Clinical Trials in Ophthalmology: Perspectives from Three Ophthalmology Outcomes Working Groups
- (2018) Ian J. Saldanha et al. OPHTHALMOLOGY
- Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 4th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research
- (2018) Elizabeth Gargon et al. PLoS One
- Cherry-picking by trialists and meta-analysts can drive conclusions about intervention efficacy
- (2017) Evan Mayo-Wilson et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- Clinical trials and systematic reviews addressing similar interventions for the same condition do not consider similar outcomes to be important: a case study in HIV/AIDS
- (2017) Ian J. Saldanha et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- The COMET Handbook: version 1.0
- (2017) Paula R. Williamson et al. Trials
- Do systematic reviews still exclude studies with “no relevant outcome data”?
- (2017) Kerry M Dwan et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
- Do systematic reviews still exclude studies with “no relevant outcome data”?
- (2017) Kerry M Dwan et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
- Comparison of Clinical Trial and Systematic Review Outcomes for the 4 Most Prevalent Eye Diseases
- (2017) Ian J. Saldanha et al. JAMA Ophthalmology
- Practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (with examples from the MUDS study)
- (2017) Evan Mayo-Wilson et al. Research Synthesis Methods
- Innovations in Data Collection, Management, and Archiving for Systematic Reviews
- (2015) Tianjing Li et al. ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
- How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set
- (2014) Iain Chalmers et al. LANCET
- Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste
- (2014) Malcolm R Macleod et al. LANCET
- Accumulating Research: A Systematic Account of How Cumulative Meta-Analyses Would Have Provided Knowledge, Improved Health, Reduced Harm and Saved Resources
- (2014) Mike Clarke et al. PLoS One
- Outcomes in Cochrane Systematic Reviews Addressing Four Common Eye Conditions: An Evaluation of Completeness and Comparability
- (2014) Ian J. Saldanha et al. PLoS One
- Selective reporting bias of harm outcomes within studies: findings from a cohort of systematic reviews
- (2014) P. Saini et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
- Selective reporting of outcomes in randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of cystic fibrosis
- (2013) Kerry Dwan et al. BMJ Open
- A multivariate meta-analysis approach for reducing the impact of outcome reporting bias in systematic reviews
- (2012) Jamie J. Kirkham et al. STATISTICS IN MEDICINE
- Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider
- (2012) Paula R Williamson et al. Trials
- The ClinicalTrials.gov Results Database — Update and Key Issues
- (2011) Deborah A. Zarin et al. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
- A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis
- (2010) Michael Borenstein et al. Research Synthesis Methods
Become a Peeref-certified reviewer
The Peeref Institute provides free reviewer training that teaches the core competencies of the academic peer review process.
Get StartedAsk a Question. Answer a Question.
Quickly pose questions to the entire community. Debate answers and get clarity on the most important issues facing researchers.
Get Started