Selective outcome reporting: telling and detecting true lies. The state of the science

Systematic review of knowledge translation strategies in the allied health professions

“…The resulting ambiguity led to substantial interpretation challenges. In the literature, the challenge of vague and incomplete reporting of outcomes has been referred to as outcome reporting bias, selective outcome reporting, and within-study selective reporting [82-86]. Generally speaking, outcome reporting bias refers to the selective reporting of some results but not others in publications [83].…”

“…Recently, studies have examined the extent and nature of outcome reporting bias through a review of publications and follow up surveys with authors [83] and comparison of protocols with published study reports [82] that, in some cases, were augmented with interviews with trialists [85]. These studies have identified that outcome reporting bias is high in the literature [82,86]. The implications of outcome reporting bias for healthcare research are significant.…”

Transparency of outcome reporting and trial registration of randomized controlled trials in top psychosomatic and behavioral health journals: A systematic review

“…Within-study selective outcome reporting, on the other hand, relates to published studies and refers to the selection of outcomes to report based on statistical significance, including the prioritization of time points for analysis, selective reporting of a subset of measures, and data-driven selection or switching of primary outcomes compared with prestudy protocols [10,19,20]. Comparisons of study protocols and published results have shown that significant outcomes are more likely to be reported than nonsignificant outcomes and that nonsignificant prespecified primary outcomes are sometimes replaced with statistically significant secondary outcomes that are identified as "primary" in published reports [10,[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27].…”

Protocol for validating cardiovascular and cerebrovascular ICD-9-CM codes in healthcare administrative databases: the Umbria Data Value Project

“…Complete, transparent and accurate reporting is essential in research, 40 because it allows readers to assess internal validity as well as to evaluate the generalisability and applicability of results. 41 To ensure quality and thoroughness of reporting, any dissemination or publication of the results from the present study will follow recommended guidelines based on the criteria published by the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy (STARD) initiative for the accurate reporting of investigations of diagnostic studies.…”