The selection of appropriate outcomes is crucial when designing clinical trials in order to
compare the effects of different interventions directly. For the findings to influence policy and …

Background The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare
interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a …

Background The use of core outcome sets (COS) ensures that researchers measure and
report those outcomes that are most likely to be relevant to users of their research. Several …

Assessment of risk of bias is regarded as an essential component of a systematic review on
the effects of an intervention. The most commonly used tool for randomised trials is the …

Objective To examine the prevalence of outcome reporting bias—the selection for publication
of a subset of the original recorded outcome variables on the basis of the results—and its …

Background Core outcome sets (COS) can enhance the relevance of research by ensuring
that outcomes of importance to health service users and other people making choices about …

Aim To develop and test a new adverse drug reaction (ADR) causality assessment tool (CAT).
A comparison between seven assessors of a new CAT, formulated by an expert focus …

RESEARCH Page 1 RESEARCH Frequency and reasons for outcome reporting bias in
clinical trials: interviews with trialists RMD Smyth, research associate,1,2 JJ Kirkham, research …

Objective To determine the extent and nature of selective non-reporting of harm outcomes
in clinical studies that were eligible for inclusion in a cohort of systematic reviews. Design …

Background Missing outcome data or the inconsistent reporting of outcome data in clinical
research can affect the quality of evidence within a systematic review. A potential solution is …