Search

Your search keyword '"Boutron, Isabelle"' showing total 20 results
Start Over Author "Boutron, Isabelle" Journal bmc medicine
20 results on '"Boutron, Isabelle"'

4. Accuracy in detecting inadequate research reporting by early career peer reviewers using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process: a cross-sectional diagnostic study

Author

Chauvin, Anthony, Ravaud, Philippe, Moher, David, Schriger, David, Hopewell, Sally, Shanahan, Daniel, Alam, Sabina, Baron, Gabriel, Regnaux, Jean-Philippe, Crequit, Perrine, Martinez, Valeria, Riveros, Carolina, Le Cleach, Laurence, Recchioni, Alessandro, Altman, Douglas G., and Boutron, Isabelle

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

11. Avoidable waste of research related to outcome planning and reporting in clinical trials

Author

Yordanov, Youri, Dechartres, Agnes, Atal, Ignacio, Tran, Viet-Thi, Boutron, Isabelle, Créquit, Perrine, Ravaud, Philippe, Centre de Recherche Épidémiologie et Statistique Sorbonne Paris Cité (CRESS (U1153 / UMR_A_1125 / UMR_S_1153)), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-Université Paris Diderot - Paris 7 (UPD7)-Université Paris Descartes - Paris 5 (UPD5)-Université Sorbonne Paris Cité (USPC)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), Service des Urgences [CHU Saint-Antoine], Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (AP-HP)-CHU Saint-Antoine [AP-HP], Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (AP-HP)-Sorbonne Université (SU)-Sorbonne Université (SU), Centre d'épidémiologie Clinique [Hôtel-Dieu], Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (AP-HP)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, Université Paris Descartes - Faculté de Médecine (UPD5 Médecine), Université Paris Descartes - Paris 5 (UPD5), Cochrane France, Department of Epidemiology [Columbia University], Columbia Mailman School of Public Health-Columbia University [New York], Service d'Urgences Adultes [CHU Saint-Antoine], CHU Saint-Antoine [AP-HP], Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (AP-HP)-Sorbonne Université (SU)-Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (AP-HP)-Sorbonne Université (SU), Columbia University [New York]-Columbia Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University [New York], Duchange, Nathalie, Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (APHP)-CHU Saint-Antoine [APHP], and Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (APHP)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Hôpital Hôtel Dieu

Subjects
Waste of research, Research Report, Clinical Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, [SDV.SPEE] Life Sciences [q-bio]/Santé publique et épidémiologie, Randomized controlled trial, Selective reporting, lcsh:R, lcsh:Medicine, Core outcome set, Humans, [SDV.SPEE]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Santé publique et épidémiologie, Outcome
Abstract

International audience; Background: Inadequate planning, selective reporting, and incomplete reporting of outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) contribute to the problem of waste of research. We aimed to describe such a waste and to examine to what extent this waste could be avoided. Methods: This research-on-research study was based on RCTs included in Cochrane reviews with a summary of findings (SoF) table. We considered the outcomes reported in the SoF tables as surrogates for important outcomes for patients and other decision makers. We used a three-step approach. (1) First, in each review, we identified, for each important outcome, RCTs that were excluded from the corresponding meta-analysis. (2) Then, for these RCTs, we systematically searched for registrations and protocols to distinguish between inadequate planning (an important outcome was not reported in registries or protocols), selective reporting (an important outcome was reported in registries or protocols but not in publications), and incomplete reporting (an important outcome was incompletely reported in publications). (3) Finally, we assessed, with the consensus of five experts, the feasibility and cost of measuring the important outcomes that were not planned. We considered inadequately planned or selectively or incompletely reported important outcomes as avoidable waste if the outcome could have been easily measured at no additional cost based on expert evaluation. Results: Of the 2711 RCTs included in the main comparison of 290 reviews, 2115 (78%) were excluded from at least one meta-analysis of important outcomes. Every trial contributed to 55%, on average, of the meta-analyses of important outcomes. Of the 310 RCTs published in 2010 or later, 156 were registered. Inadequate planning affected 79% of these RCTs, whereas incomplete and selective reporting affected 41% and 15%, respectively. For 63% of RCTs, we found at least one missing important outcome for which the waste was avoidable and for 30%, the waste was avoidable for all important outcomes. Conclusions: Most of the RCTs included in our sample did not contribute to all the important outcomes in meta-analyses, mostly because of inadequate planning or incomplete reporting. A large part of this waste of research seemed to be avoidable.

Published
2017

12. Impact of a web-based tool (WebCONSORT) to improve the reporting of randomised trials: results of a randomised controlled trial

Author

Hopewell, Sally, primary, Boutron, Isabelle, additional, Altman, Douglas G., additional, Barbour, Ginny, additional, Moher, David, additional, Montori, Victor, additional, Schriger, David, additional, Cook, Jonathan, additional, Gerry, Stephen, additional, Omar, Omar, additional, Dutton, Peter, additional, Roberts, Corran, additional, Frangou, Eleni, additional, Clifton, Lei, additional, Chiocchia, Virginia, additional, Rombach, Ines, additional, Wartolowska, Karolina, additional, and Ravaud, Philippe, additional

Published
2016
Full Text
View/download PDF

20. Changes in evidence for studies assessing interventions for COVID-19 reported in preprints: meta-research study.

Author

Oikonomidi, Theodora, Boutron, Isabelle, Pierre, Olivier, Cabanac, Guillaume, Ravaud, Philippe, and COVID-19 NMA Consortium

Subjects
*COVID-19, *PREPRINTS, *UNCERTAINTY, *EVIDENCE, *PERIODICAL articles
Abstract

Background: The increasing use of preprints to disseminate evidence on the effect of interventions for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to multiple evidence sources for a single study, which may differ in the reported evidence. We aim to describe the proportion of evidence on the effect of interventions for COVID-19 from preprints and journal articles and map changes in evidence between and within different sources reporting on the same study.Methods: Meta-research study. We screened the Cochrane living systematic review and network meta-analysis (COVID-NMA) database to identify all preprints and journal articles on all studies assessing interventions for COVID-19 published up to 15 August 2020. We compared all evidence sources (i.e., preprint and associated journal article) and the first and latest versions of preprints for each study to identify changes in two evidence components: study results (e.g., numeric change in hazard ratio, odds ratio, event rate, or change in p value > or < 0.05 in any outcome) and abstract conclusions (classified as positive, negative or neutral regarding the intervention effect, and as reporting uncertainty in the findings or not). Changes in study results were further classified as important changes if they (1) represented a change in any effect estimate by ≥ 10% and/or (2) led to a change in the p value crossing the threshold of 0.05.Results: We identified 556 studies. In total, 338 (61%) had been reported in a preprint: 66 (20%) of these had an associated journal article (median time to publication 76 days [interquartile range (IQR) 55-106]) and 91 (27%) had > 1 preprint version. A total of 139 studies (25% of the overall sample) were reported in multiple evidence sources or versions of the same source: for 63 (45%), there was a change in at least one evidence component between or within sources (42 [30%] had a change in study results, and in 29 [21%] the change was classified as important; 33 [24%] had a change in the abstract conclusion). For studies with both a preprint and an article, a median of 29% (IQR 14-50) of total citations were attributed to the preprint instead of the article.Conclusions: Results on the effect of interventions for COVID-19 are often reported in multiple evidence sources or source versions for a single study. Evidence is not stable between and within evidence sources. Real-time linkage of all sources per study could help to keep systematic reviews up-to-date. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results