Objective: To assess the risk of bias associated with missing outcome data in systematic reviews.
Design: Imputation study.
Setting: Systematic reviews.
Background: How systematic review authors address missing data among eligible primary studies remains uncertain.
Objective: To assess whether systematic review authors are consistent in the way they handle missing data, both across trials included in the same meta-analysis, and with their reported methods.
Methods: We first identified 100 eligible systematic reviews that included a statistically significant meta-analysis of a patient-important dichotomous efficacy outcome.
Background And Objective: Missing data for the outcomes of participants in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are a key element of risk of bias assessment. However, it is not always clear from RCT reports whether some categories of participants were followed-up or not (i.e.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBackground: Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) have a uniquely indolent biology. Management focuses on tumor and hormonal burden reduction. Data on cytoreduction with extrahepatic disease remain limited.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFImportance: It is unclear how medical journals address authors' financial and non-financial conflict of interest (COI).
Objective: To assess the policies of clinical journals for disclosure of financial and non-financial COI.
Methods: Cross sectional study that included both review of public documents as well as a simulation of a manuscript submission for the National Library of Medicine's "core clinical journals".