IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0137667.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Discrepancies in Outcome Reporting Exist Between Protocols and Published Oral Health Cochrane Systematic Reviews

Author

Listed:
  • Nikolaos Pandis
  • Padhraig S Fleming
  • Helen Worthington
  • Kerry Dwan
  • Georgia Salanti

Abstract

Objectives: To assess discrepancies in the analyzed outcomes between protocols and published reviews within Cochrane oral health systematic reviews (COHG) on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). Study Design and Setting: All COHG systematic reviews on the CDSR and the corresponding protocols were retrieved in November 2014 and information on the reported outcomes was recorded. Data was collected at the systematic review level by two reviewers independently. Results: One hundred and fifty two reviews were included. In relation to primary outcomes, 11.2% were downgraded to secondary outcomes, 9.9% were omitted altogether in the final publication and new primary outcomes were identified in 18.4% of publications. For secondary outcomes, 2% were upgraded to primary, 12.5% were omitted and 30.9% were newly introduced in the publication. Overall, 45.4% of reviews had at least one discrepancy when compared to the protocol; these were reported in 14.5% reviews. The number of review updates appears to be associated with discrepancies between final review and protocol (OR: 3.18, 95% CI: 1.77, 5.74, p

Suggested Citation

  • Nikolaos Pandis & Padhraig S Fleming & Helen Worthington & Kerry Dwan & Georgia Salanti, 2015. "Discrepancies in Outcome Reporting Exist Between Protocols and Published Oral Health Cochrane Systematic Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-10, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0137667
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0137667
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0137667
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0137667&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0137667?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kerry Dwan & Douglas G Altman & Mike Clarke & Carrol Gamble & Julian P T Higgins & Jonathan A C Sterne & Paula R Williamson & Jamie J Kirkham, 2014. "Evidence for the Selective Reporting of Analyses and Discrepancies in Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review of Cohort Studies of Clinical Trials," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-22, June.
    2. David Moher & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Andrea C Tricco & Margaret Sampson & Douglas G Altman, 2007. "Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(3), pages 1-9, March.
    3. Kerry Dwan & Douglas G Altman & Juan A Arnaiz & Jill Bloom & An-Wen Chan & Eugenia Cronin & Evelyne Decullier & Philippa J Easterbrook & Erik Von Elm & Carrol Gamble & Davina Ghersi & John P A Ioannid, 2008. "Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(8), pages 1-31, August.
    4. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    5. Jamie J Kirkham & Doug G Altman & Paula R Williamson, 2010. "Bias Due to Changes in Specified Outcomes during the Systematic Review Process," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(3), pages 1-5, March.
    6. J. L. Hutton & Paula R. Williamson, 2000. "Bias in meta‐analysis due to outcome variable selection within studies," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 49(3), pages 359-370.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jamie J Kirkham & Doug G Altman & Paula R Williamson, 2010. "Bias Due to Changes in Specified Outcomes during the Systematic Review Process," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(3), pages 1-5, March.
    2. Neal R. Haddaway & Matthew J. Page & Chris C. Pritchard & Luke A. McGuinness, 2022. "PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), June.
    3. Giuseppe La Torre & Remigio Bova & Rosario Andrea Cocchiara & Cristina Sestili & Anna Tagliaferri & Simona Maggiacomo & Camilla Foschi & William Zomparelli & Maria Vittoria Manai & David Shaholli & Va, 2023. "What Are the Determinants of the Quality of Systematic Reviews in the International Journals of Occupational Medicine? A Methodological Study Review of Published Literature," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-12, January.
    4. Wynanda A van Enst & Rob J P M Scholten & Lotty Hooft, 2012. "Identification of Additional Trials in Prospective Trial Registers for Cochrane Systematic Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(8), pages 1-5, August.
    5. Ana Virgolino & Osvaldo Santos & Joana Costa & Mónica Fialho & Ivo Iavicoli & Tiina Santonen & Hanna Tolonen & Evangelia Samoli & Klea Katsouyanni & Georgios Baltatzis & Flavia Ruggieri & Annalisa Abb, 2021. "Challenges to Evidence Synthesis and Identification of Data Gaps in Human Biomonitoring," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-11, March.
    6. Matthew J Page & Joanne E McKenzie & Patrick M Bossuyt & Isabelle Boutron & Tammy C Hoffmann & Cynthia D Mulrow & Larissa Shamseer & Jennifer M Tetzlaff & Elie A Akl & Sue E Brennan & Roger Chou & Jul, 2021. "The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(3), pages 1-15, March.
    7. Tina Ljungberg & Emma Bondza & Connie Lethin, 2020. "Evidence of the Importance of Dietary Habits Regarding Depressive Symptoms and Depression," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-18, March.
    8. Salandra, Rossella & Criscuolo, Paola & Salter, Ammon, 2021. "Directing scientists away from potentially biased publications: the role of systematic reviews in health care," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    9. Salandra, Rossella, 2018. "Knowledge dissemination in clinical trials: Exploring influences of institutional support and type of innovation on selective reporting," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1215-1228.
    10. Laura Sheble, 2017. "Macro‐level diffusion of a methodological knowledge innovation: Research synthesis methods, 1972–2011," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(12), pages 2693-2708, December.
    11. Takeshi Seta & Yoshimitsu Takahashi & Yoshinori Noguchi & Satoru Shikata & Tatsuya Sakai & Kyoko Sakai & Yukitaka Yamashita & Takeo Nakayama, 2017. "Effectiveness of Helicobacter pylori eradication in the prevention of primary gastric cancer in healthy asymptomatic people: A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing risk ratio with risk differ," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, August.
    12. Sean P David & Jennifer J Ware & Isabella M Chu & Pooja D Loftus & Paolo Fusar-Poli & Joaquim Radua & Marcus R Munafò & John P A Ioannidis, 2013. "Potential Reporting Bias in fMRI Studies of the Brain," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-9, July.
    13. Alex Eble & Peter Boone & Diana Elbourne, 2017. "On Minimizing the Risk of Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials in Economics," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 31(3), pages 687-707.
    14. Jeroen P M Peters & Lotty Hooft & Wilko Grolman & Inge Stegeman, 2015. "Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Otorhinolaryngologic Articles Based on the PRISMA Statement," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-11, August.
    15. Ivor Popovich & Bethany Windsor & Vanessa Jordan & Marian Showell & Bev Shea & Cynthia M Farquhar, 2012. "Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews in Subfertility: A Comparison of Two Different Approaches," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-9, December.
    16. João Carlos Belloti & Aldo Okamura & Jordana Scheeren & Flávio Faloppa & Vinícius Ynoe de Moraes, 2019. "A systematic review of the quality of distal radius systematic reviews: Methodology and reporting assessment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, January.
    17. Dongying Li & Tess Menotti & Yizhen Ding & Nancy M. Wells, 2021. "Life Course Nature Exposure and Mental Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Future Directions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-28, May.
    18. Amin Haghnejad & Mahboobeh Farahati, 2024. "An overview of meta-analytic methods for economic research," Papers 2412.10608, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2025.
    19. Yali Liu & Rui Zhang & Jiao Huang & Xu Zhao & Danlu Liu & Wanting Sun & Yuefen Mai & Peng Zhang & Yajun Wang & Hua Cao & Ke hu Yang, 2014. "Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses of Acupuncture," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-7, November.
    20. Lucy Turner & James Galipeau & Chantelle Garritty & Eric Manheimer & L Susan Wieland & Fatemeh Yazdi & David Moher, 2013. "An Evaluation of Epidemiological and Reporting Characteristics of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Systematic Reviews (SRs)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0137667. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.