Study Design and Setting
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Higgins J. Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011 (Available at http://handbook.cochrane.org.)
- Institute of Medicine. Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2011
- The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration.BMJ. 2009; 339: b2700
- Selective reporting of outcomes in randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of cystic fibrosis.BMJ Open. 2013; 3 (e002709)
- Bias due to changes in specified outcomes during the systematic review process.PLoS One. 2010; 5: e9810
- Publishing protocols of systematic reviews: comparing what was done to what was planned.JAMA. 2002; 287: 2831-2834
- Reporting of outcomes in systematic reviews: comparison of protocols and published systematic reviews.15th Cochrane Colloquium, Sao Paulo2007
- Few systematic reviews exist documenting the extent of bias: a systematic review.J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 61: 422-434
- 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; 10: MR000035
PROSPERO. York, England: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Univeristy of York; [updated November 2015]. Available at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/.
- Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews.PloS Med. 2007; 4: e78
- Statistical power, sample size, and their reporting in randomized controlled trials.JAMA. 1994; 272: 122-124
- Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane reviews were twice as likely to have positive conclusion statements: cross-sectional study.J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62: 380-386.e1
- AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62: 1013-1020
- Extended-release opioids in the management of cancer pain: a systematic review of efficacy and safety.Eur J Pain. 2014; 18: 605-616
- Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up?.PloS Med. 2010; 7: e1000326
Conflict of interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: no financial support for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; A.B., L.A.S., and D.M. are members of the PROSPERO Advisory Group; A.C.T. is an author of one of the included systematic reviews but was not involved with the AMSTAR appraisal or data abstraction for this review and was blinded to the author names during the analysis, she is also an Associate Editor for the journal but was not involved with the decision to publish; S.E.S. and D.M. are part of the journal's Policy Advisory Board but were not involved with the decision to publish; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Funding: No funding was received for this study. A.C.T. is funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research New Investigator Award in Knowledge Synthesis, S.E.S. is funded by a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Translation, A.B. and L.A.S. are funded by the National Institute for Health Research, and D.M. is funded by a University of Ottawa Research Chair.
Ethics approval: Ethics approval was not required.
Transparency declaration: A.C.T. accepts full responsibility for the finished article, had access to all the data, and controlled the decision to publish. A.C.T. affirms that this manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that no discrepancies from the study as planned occurred.