Article type
Year
Abstract
Objectives:
- To describe elements of a completely specified outcome and what counts as an outcome, e.g. whether different time points of the same outcome domain should be considered as multiple outcomes or one outcome;
- To demonstrate the wide range in number of outcomes in Cochrane Reviews; and
- To discuss the advantages and disadvantages of limiting the number of outcomes during a Cochrane Review.
Description:
Outcomes are critical for systematic reviews. Two main opposing views exist regarding the number of outcomes to include in a review: (1) limit the number of outcomes, (2) allow authors to include as many outcomes as they wish. There are strong arguments supporting each view, reflected in the wide range in number of outcomes across Cochrane Reviews. Some arguments in favor of limiting the number of outcomes include potential control of Type I error and ease of conduct, interpretation, and readability of the review. Some arguments against limiting include reduction of selective outcome reporting, increase in comprehensiveness of the review, identification of evidence gaps, and incorporation of new outcomes.
This workshop will be a debate with four speakers, two presenting each side of the issue. They will present opening remarks (8 min each), followed by an open discussion among those on opposing sides as well as participants in the audience (30 min). During the last 20 minutes, we will outline specific conclusions and discuss future directions.
- To describe elements of a completely specified outcome and what counts as an outcome, e.g. whether different time points of the same outcome domain should be considered as multiple outcomes or one outcome;
- To demonstrate the wide range in number of outcomes in Cochrane Reviews; and
- To discuss the advantages and disadvantages of limiting the number of outcomes during a Cochrane Review.
Description:
Outcomes are critical for systematic reviews. Two main opposing views exist regarding the number of outcomes to include in a review: (1) limit the number of outcomes, (2) allow authors to include as many outcomes as they wish. There are strong arguments supporting each view, reflected in the wide range in number of outcomes across Cochrane Reviews. Some arguments in favor of limiting the number of outcomes include potential control of Type I error and ease of conduct, interpretation, and readability of the review. Some arguments against limiting include reduction of selective outcome reporting, increase in comprehensiveness of the review, identification of evidence gaps, and incorporation of new outcomes.
This workshop will be a debate with four speakers, two presenting each side of the issue. They will present opening remarks (8 min each), followed by an open discussion among those on opposing sides as well as participants in the audience (30 min). During the last 20 minutes, we will outline specific conclusions and discuss future directions.