Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Conference abstracts describing systematic reviews on pain were selectively published, not reliable, and poorly reported.
Saric, Lenko; Dosenovic, Svjetlana; Saldanha, Ian J; Jelicic Kadic, Antonia; Puljak, Livia.
Afiliación
  • Saric L; Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Split, Split, Croatia.
  • Dosenovic S; Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Split, Split, Croatia.
  • Saldanha IJ; Department of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, Center for Evidence Synthesis in Health, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
  • Jelicic Kadic A; Department of Pediatrics, University Hospital Split, Split, Croatia.
  • Puljak L; Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and Health Care, Catholic University of Croatia, Zagreb, Croatia. Electronic address: livia.puljak@gmail.com.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 117: 1-8, 2020 01.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31533073
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to determine the reporting quality of systematic review (SR) abstracts presented at World Congresses on Pain (WCPs) and to quantify agreement in results presented in those abstracts with their corresponding full-length publications. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We screened abstracts of five WCPs held from 2008 to 2016 to find abstracts describing SRs. Two authors searched for corresponding full publications using PubMed and Google Scholar in April 2018. Methods and outcomes extracted from abstracts were compared with their corresponding full publications. The reporting quality of abstracts was evaluated against the PRISMA for Abstracts (PRISMA-A) checklist. RESULTS: We identified 143 conference abstracts describing SRs. Of these, 90 (63%) were published as full-length articles in peer-reviewed journals by April 2018, with a median time from conference presentation to publication of 5 months (interquartile range: -0.25 to 14 months). Among 79 abstract-publication pairs evaluable for discordance, there was some form of discordance in 40% of pairs. Qualitative discordance (different direction of the effect) was found in 13 analyzed pairs (16%). The median adherence by abstracts to each PRISMA-A checklist item was 33% (interquartile range: 29% to 42%). CONCLUSION: Conference abstracts of pain SRs are selectively published, not reliable, and poorly reported.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Dolor / Proyectos de Investigación / Indización y Redacción de Resúmenes Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research / Systematic_reviews Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Clin Epidemiol Asunto de la revista: EPIDEMIOLOGIA Año: 2020 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Croacia Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Dolor / Proyectos de Investigación / Indización y Redacción de Resúmenes Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research / Systematic_reviews Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Clin Epidemiol Asunto de la revista: EPIDEMIOLOGIA Año: 2020 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Croacia Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos