Authors seldom report the most patient-important outcomes and absolute effect measures in systematic review abstracts

Arnav Agarwal; Bradley C. Johnston; Robin W.M. Vernooij; Alonso Carrasco-Labra; Romina Brignardello-Petersen; Ignacio Neumann; Elie A. Akl; Xin Sun; Matthias Briel; Jason W. Busse; Shanil Ebrahim; Carlos E. Granados; Alfonso Iorio; Affan Irfan; Laura Martínez García; Reem A. Mustafa; Anggie Ramirez-Morera; Anna Selva; Ivan Solà; Andrea J. Sanabrai; Kari A.O. Tikkinen; Per O. Vandvik; Yuqing Zhang; Oscar E. Zazueta; Qi Zhou; Holger J. Schunemann; Gordon H. Guyatt; Pablo Alonso-Coello

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.08.004

Authors seldom report the most patient-important outcomes and absolute effect measures in systematic review abstracts

Arnav Agarwal, Bradley C. Johnston, Robin W.M. Vernooij, Alonso Carrasco-Labra, Romina Brignardello-Petersen, Ignacio Neumann, Elie A. Akl, Xin Sun, Matthias Briel, Jason W. Busse, Shanil Ebrahim, Carlos E. Granados, Alfonso Iorio, Affan Irfan, Laura Martínez García, Reem A. Mustafa, Anggie Ramirez-Morera, Anna Selva, Ivan Solà, Andrea J. SanabraiKari A.O. Tikkinen, Per O. Vandvik, Yuqing Zhang, Oscar E. Zazueta, Qi Zhou, Holger J. Schunemann, Gordon H. Guyatt, Pablo Alonso-Coello

Research output: Journal Publication › Review article › peer-review

32 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives Explicit reporting of absolute measures is important to ensure treatment effects are correctly interpreted. We examined the extent to which authors report absolute effects for patient-important outcomes in abstracts of systematic review (SR). Study Design and Setting We searched OVID MEDLINE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify eligible SRs published in the year 2010. Citations were stratified into Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, with repeated random sampling in a 1:1 ratio. Paired reviewers screened articles and recorded abstract characteristics, including reporting of effect measures for the most patient-important outcomes of benefit and harm. Results We included 96 Cochrane and 94 non-Cochrane reviews. About 117 (77.5%) relative measures were reported in abstracts for outcomes of benefit, whereas only 34 (22.5%) absolute measures were reported. Similarly, for outcomes of harm, 41 (87.2%) relative measures were provided in abstracts, compared with only 6 (12.8%) absolute measures. Eighteen (9.5%) abstracts reported both absolute and relative measures for outcomes of benefit, whereas only two (1.1%) abstracts reported both measures for outcomes of harm. Results were similar between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. Conclusion SR abstracts seldom report measures of absolute effect. Journal editors should insist that authors report both relative and absolute effects for patient-important outcomes.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	3-12
Number of pages	10
Journal	Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume	81
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.08.004
Publication status	Published - 1 Jan 2017
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

Absolute measures
Abstract reporting
Cochrane reviews
Explicit reporting
Non-Cochrane reviews
Patient-important outcomes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Epidemiology

Access to Document

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.08.004

Cite this

Agarwal, A., Johnston, B. C., Vernooij, R. W. M., Carrasco-Labra, A., Brignardello-Petersen, R., Neumann, I., Akl, E. A., Sun, X., Briel, M., Busse, J. W., Ebrahim, S., Granados, C. E., Iorio, A., Irfan, A., Martínez García, L., Mustafa, R. A., Ramirez-Morera, A., Selva, A., Solà, I., ... Alonso-Coello, P. (2017). Authors seldom report the most patient-important outcomes and absolute effect measures in systematic review abstracts. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 81, 3-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.08.004

@article{d648ee492b1e428cb9ce05e9ef2f4d66,

title = "Authors seldom report the most patient-important outcomes and absolute effect measures in systematic review abstracts",

abstract = "Objectives Explicit reporting of absolute measures is important to ensure treatment effects are correctly interpreted. We examined the extent to which authors report absolute effects for patient-important outcomes in abstracts of systematic review (SR). Study Design and Setting We searched OVID MEDLINE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify eligible SRs published in the year 2010. Citations were stratified into Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, with repeated random sampling in a 1:1 ratio. Paired reviewers screened articles and recorded abstract characteristics, including reporting of effect measures for the most patient-important outcomes of benefit and harm. Results We included 96 Cochrane and 94 non-Cochrane reviews. About 117 (77.5\%) relative measures were reported in abstracts for outcomes of benefit, whereas only 34 (22.5\%) absolute measures were reported. Similarly, for outcomes of harm, 41 (87.2\%) relative measures were provided in abstracts, compared with only 6 (12.8\%) absolute measures. Eighteen (9.5\%) abstracts reported both absolute and relative measures for outcomes of benefit, whereas only two (1.1\%) abstracts reported both measures for outcomes of harm. Results were similar between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. Conclusion SR abstracts seldom report measures of absolute effect. Journal editors should insist that authors report both relative and absolute effects for patient-important outcomes.",

keywords = "Absolute measures, Abstract reporting, Cochrane reviews, Explicit reporting, Non-Cochrane reviews, Patient-important outcomes",

author = "Arnav Agarwal and Johnston, \{Bradley C.\} and Vernooij, \{Robin W.M.\} and Alonso Carrasco-Labra and Romina Brignardello-Petersen and Ignacio Neumann and Akl, \{Elie A.\} and Xin Sun and Matthias Briel and Busse, \{Jason W.\} and Shanil Ebrahim and Granados, \{Carlos E.\} and Alfonso Iorio and Affan Irfan and \{Mart{\'i}nez Garc{\'i}a\}, Laura and Mustafa, \{Reem A.\} and Anggie Ramirez-Morera and Anna Selva and Ivan Sol{\`a} and Sanabrai, \{Andrea J.\} and Tikkinen, \{Kari A.O.\} and Vandvik, \{Per O.\} and Yuqing Zhang and Zazueta, \{Oscar E.\} and Qi Zhou and Schunemann, \{Holger J.\} and Guyatt, \{Gordon H.\} and Pablo Alonso-Coello",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2016 Elsevier Inc.",

year = "2017",

month = jan,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.08.004",

language = "English",

volume = "81",

pages = "3--12",

journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",

issn = "0895-4356",

publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

Agarwal, A, Johnston, BC, Vernooij, RWM, Carrasco-Labra, A, Brignardello-Petersen, R, Neumann, I, Akl, EA, Sun, X, Briel, M, Busse, JW, Ebrahim, S, Granados, CE, Iorio, A, Irfan, A, Martínez García, L, Mustafa, RA, Ramirez-Morera, A, Selva, A, Solà, I, Sanabrai, AJ, Tikkinen, KAO, Vandvik, PO, Zhang, Y, Zazueta, OE, Zhou, Q, Schunemann, HJ, Guyatt, GH & Alonso-Coello, P 2017, 'Authors seldom report the most patient-important outcomes and absolute effect measures in systematic review abstracts', Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 81, pp. 3-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.08.004

TY - JOUR

T1 - Authors seldom report the most patient-important outcomes and absolute effect measures in systematic review abstracts

AU - Agarwal, Arnav

AU - Johnston, Bradley C.

AU - Vernooij, Robin W.M.

AU - Carrasco-Labra, Alonso

AU - Brignardello-Petersen, Romina

AU - Neumann, Ignacio

AU - Akl, Elie A.

AU - Sun, Xin

AU - Briel, Matthias

AU - Busse, Jason W.

AU - Ebrahim, Shanil

AU - Granados, Carlos E.

AU - Iorio, Alfonso

AU - Irfan, Affan

AU - Martínez García, Laura

AU - Mustafa, Reem A.

AU - Ramirez-Morera, Anggie

AU - Selva, Anna

AU - Solà, Ivan

AU - Sanabrai, Andrea J.

AU - Tikkinen, Kari A.O.

AU - Vandvik, Per O.

AU - Zhang, Yuqing

AU - Zazueta, Oscar E.

AU - Zhou, Qi

AU - Schunemann, Holger J.

AU - Guyatt, Gordon H.

AU - Alonso-Coello, Pablo

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - Objectives Explicit reporting of absolute measures is important to ensure treatment effects are correctly interpreted. We examined the extent to which authors report absolute effects for patient-important outcomes in abstracts of systematic review (SR). Study Design and Setting We searched OVID MEDLINE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify eligible SRs published in the year 2010. Citations were stratified into Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, with repeated random sampling in a 1:1 ratio. Paired reviewers screened articles and recorded abstract characteristics, including reporting of effect measures for the most patient-important outcomes of benefit and harm. Results We included 96 Cochrane and 94 non-Cochrane reviews. About 117 (77.5%) relative measures were reported in abstracts for outcomes of benefit, whereas only 34 (22.5%) absolute measures were reported. Similarly, for outcomes of harm, 41 (87.2%) relative measures were provided in abstracts, compared with only 6 (12.8%) absolute measures. Eighteen (9.5%) abstracts reported both absolute and relative measures for outcomes of benefit, whereas only two (1.1%) abstracts reported both measures for outcomes of harm. Results were similar between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. Conclusion SR abstracts seldom report measures of absolute effect. Journal editors should insist that authors report both relative and absolute effects for patient-important outcomes.

AB - Objectives Explicit reporting of absolute measures is important to ensure treatment effects are correctly interpreted. We examined the extent to which authors report absolute effects for patient-important outcomes in abstracts of systematic review (SR). Study Design and Setting We searched OVID MEDLINE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify eligible SRs published in the year 2010. Citations were stratified into Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, with repeated random sampling in a 1:1 ratio. Paired reviewers screened articles and recorded abstract characteristics, including reporting of effect measures for the most patient-important outcomes of benefit and harm. Results We included 96 Cochrane and 94 non-Cochrane reviews. About 117 (77.5%) relative measures were reported in abstracts for outcomes of benefit, whereas only 34 (22.5%) absolute measures were reported. Similarly, for outcomes of harm, 41 (87.2%) relative measures were provided in abstracts, compared with only 6 (12.8%) absolute measures. Eighteen (9.5%) abstracts reported both absolute and relative measures for outcomes of benefit, whereas only two (1.1%) abstracts reported both measures for outcomes of harm. Results were similar between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. Conclusion SR abstracts seldom report measures of absolute effect. Journal editors should insist that authors report both relative and absolute effects for patient-important outcomes.

KW - Absolute measures

KW - Abstract reporting

KW - Cochrane reviews

KW - Explicit reporting

KW - Non-Cochrane reviews

KW - Patient-important outcomes

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85011076222

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.08.004

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.08.004

M3 - Review article

C2 - 27555080

AN - SCOPUS:85011076222

SN - 0895-4356

VL - 81

SP - 3

EP - 12

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

ER -

Authors seldom report the most patient-important outcomes and absolute effect measures in systematic review abstracts

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this