Publications by authors named "Elizabeth Tolbert"
Background: We used various methods for identifying and prioritizing patient-centered outcomes (PCOs) for comparative effectiveness research (CER).
Methods: We considered potential PCOs ("benefits" and "harms") related to (1) gabapentin for neuropathic pain and (2) quetiapine for bipolar depression. Part 1 (April 2014 to March 2015): we searched for PCO research and core outcome sets (COSs).
The correct title of the article [1] should be "Integrating multiple data sources (MUDS) for meta-analysis to improve patient-centered outcomes research: a protocol".
View Article and Find Full Text PDFThe correct title of the article [1] should be "Integrating multiple data sources (MUDS) for meta-analysis to improve patient-centered outcomes research: a protocol". The article is a protocol for a methodological study, not a systematic review.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFArticle Synopsis
- - The study aimed to explore how inconsistencies among various data sources impact systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), specifically focusing on gabapentin for neuropathic pain and quetiapine for bipolar depression.
- - Researchers analyzed 21 gabapentin RCTs and 7 quetiapine RCTs, primarily found in journal articles, revealing that clinical study reports (CSRs) provided the most detailed trial design and bias information.
- - The findings indicated that choosing different meta-analyzable results could significantly alter overall conclusions about the effectiveness of treatments, underscoring how data source disagreements can influence interpretations of clinical outcomes.
Background: Systematic reviews should provide trustworthy guidance to decision-makers, but their credibility is challenged by the selective reporting of trial results and outcomes. Some trials are not published, and even among clinical trials that are published partially (e.g.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF