Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Oct 01CD
Systematic reviews may be compromised by selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses. Selective inclusion occurs when there are multiple effect estimates in a trial report that could be included in a particular meta-analysis (e.g. from multiple measurement scales and time points) and the choice of effect estimate to include in the meta-analysis is based on the results (e.g. statistical significance, magnitude or direction of effect). Selective reporting occurs when the reporting of a subset of outcomes and analyses in the systematic review is based on the results (e.g. a protocol-defined outcome is omitted from the published systematic review).
To summarise the characteristics and synthesise the results of empirical studies that have investigated the prevalence of selective inclusion or reporting in systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), investigated the factors (e.g. statistical significance or direction of effect) associated with the prevalence and quantified the bias.
We searched the Cochrane Methodology Register (to July 2012), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid PsycINFO and ISI Web of Science (each up to May 2013), and the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Effective Healthcare Program's Scientific Resource Center (SRC) Methods Library (to June 2013). We also searched the abstract books of the 2011 and 2012 Cochrane Colloquia and the article alerts for methodological work in research synthesis published from 2009 to 2011 and compiled in Research Synthesis Methods.
We included both published and unpublished empirical studies that investigated the prevalence and factors associated with selective inclusion or reporting, or both, in systematic reviews of RCTs of healthcare interventions. We included empirical studies assessing any type of selective inclusion or reporting, such as investigations of how frequently RCT outcome data is selectively included in systematic reviews based on the results, outcomes and analyses are discrepant between protocol and published review or non-significant outcomes are partially reported in the full text or summary within systematic reviews.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected empirical studies for inclusion, extracted the data and performed a risk of bias assessment. A third review author resolved any disagreements about inclusion or exclusion of empirical studies, data extraction and risk of bias. We contacted authors of included studies for additional unpublished data. Primary outcomes included overall prevalence of selective inclusion or reporting, association between selective inclusion or reporting and the statistical significance of the effect estimate, and association between selective inclusion or reporting and the direction of the effect estimate. We combined prevalence estimates and risk ratios (RRs) using a random-effects meta-analysis model.
Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. No studies had investigated selective inclusion of results in systematic reviews, or discrepancies in outcomes and analyses between systematic review registry entries and published systematic reviews. Based on a meta-analysis of four studies (including 485 Cochrane Reviews), 38% (95% confidence interval (CI) 23% to 54%) of systematic reviews added, omitted, upgraded or downgraded at least one outcome between the protocol and published systematic review. The association between statistical significance and discrepant outcome reporting between protocol and published systematic review was uncertain. The meta-analytic estimate suggested an increased risk of adding or upgrading (i.e. changing a secondary outcome to primary) when the outcome was statistically significant, although the 95% CI included no association and a decreased risk as plausible estimates (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.85; two studies, n = 552 meta-analyses). Also, the meta-analytic estimate suggested an increased risk of downgrading (i.e. changing a primary outcome to secondary) when the outcome was statistically significant, although the 95% CI included no association and a decreased risk as plausible estimates (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.62; two studies, n = 484 meta-analyses). None of the included studies had investigated whether the association between statistical significance and adding, upgrading or downgrading of outcomes was modified by the type of comparison, direction of effect or type of outcome; or whether there is an association between direction of the effect estimate and discrepant outcome reporting.Several secondary outcomes were reported in the included studies. Two studies found that reasons for discrepant outcome reporting were infrequently reported in published systematic reviews (6% in one study and 22% in the other). One study (including 62 Cochrane Reviews) found that 32% (95% CI 21% to 45%) of systematic reviews did not report all primary outcomes in the abstract. Another study (including 64 Cochrane and 118 non-Cochrane reviews) found that statistically significant primary outcomes were more likely to be completely reported in the systematic review abstract than non-significant primary outcomes (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.81 to 3.90). None of the studies included systematic reviews published after 2009 when reporting standards for systematic reviews (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement, and Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR)) were disseminated, so the results might not be generalisable to more recent systematic reviews.