Trials and systematic reviews are used by clinicians and policymakers to develop evidence-based guidelines and make decisions about treatment or prevention of health problems. When more detailed information for interventions was analysed for oseltamivir trials, over half (55%) of the previous risk of bias assessments were reclassified from ‘low’ risk of bias to ‘high’ ( Jefferson et al. In 14 of the 22 included studies, the number of adverse events in the sponsor’s database differed from the published articles by 20% or more. In a cohort study of Cochrane systematic reviews, Saini and colleagues (2014) found 86% of reviews did not report data on the main harm outcome of interest.Īnother cohort study found considerable inconsistency in the reporting of adverse events when comparing sponsors databases with study protocols ( Scharf & Colevas, 2006). Thirteen per cent of trials introduced a new outcome in the published articles compared with those specified in the registered protocols. There were discrepancies between prespecified and reported outcomes in a third of the studies. They identified reporting biases in 50 types of pharmacological, surgical, diagnostic and preventative interventions which included the withholding of study data or the active attempt by manufacturers to suppress the publication of findings.Ī systematic review by Jones and colleagues (2015) compared the outcomes of randomised controlled trials specified in registered protocols with those in subsequent peer-reviewed journal articles. Figure 1 illustrates where reporting biases can occur in the lifecycle of research and provides several examples of reporting biases.ĭownload the powerpoint: Reporting biases ExampleĪ narrative review conducted by McGauran and colleagues (2010) found reporting biases are a widespread phenomenon in the medical literature. Researchers have previously described seven types of reporting biases, including publication bias, time-lag bias, multiple (duplicate) publication bias, location bias, citation bias, language bias and outcome reporting bias ( Higgins & Green. Our definition of reporting biases is a distortion of presented information from research due to the selective disclosure or withholding of information by parties involved with regards to the topic selected for study and the design, conduct, analysis, or dissemination of study methods, findings or both. The James Lind Library states “ biased reporting of research occurs when the direction or statistical significance of results influence whether and how research is reported.”.The Cochrane Handbook states it arises “ when the dissemination of research findings is influenced by the nature and direction of results.The Dictionary of Epidemiology defines reporting bias as the “s elective revelation or suppression of information (e.g., about past medical history, smoking, sexual experiences) or of study results.Since then, various definitions of reporting biases have been proposed: Reporting biases have been recognised for hundreds of years, dating back to the 17th century ( Dickersin & Chambers, 2010). It is described as the most significant form of scientific misconduct ( Al-Marzouki et al. Reporting biases is an umbrella term that covers a range of different types of biases.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |