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 Sanabrai

Kari A O Tikkinen, Per O Vandvik, Yuqing Zhang, Oscar E Zazueta, Qi Zhou, Holger J Schunemann, Gordon H Guyatt, Pablo Alonso-Coello

^*Corresponding author for this work

Nephrology

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

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 - Jan 2017

Keywords

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

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{9b7bb5ac54624e6f95c2c4c27147bc56,

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,

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",

}

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

Y1 - 2017/1

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

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

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this