***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: Objective To examine the prevalence of outcome reporting bias — the selection for publication of a subset of the original recorded outcome variables on the basis of the results — and its impact on Cochrane review s. Design A nine point classification system for missing outcome data in r and omised trials was developed and applied to the trials assessed in a large , unselected cohort of Cochrane systematic review s. Research ers who conducted the trials were contacted and the reason sought for the non-reporting of data . A sensitivity analysis was undertaken to assess the impact of outcome reporting bias on review s that included a single meta- analysis of the review primary outcome . Results More than half ( 157/283 ( 55 % ) ) the review s did not include full data for the review primary outcome of interest from all eligible trials . The median amount of review outcome data missing for any reason was 10 % , whereas 50 % or more of the potential data were missing in 70 ( 25 % ) review s. It was clear from the publications for 155 ( 6 % ) of the 2486 assessable trials that the research ers had measured and analysed the review primary outcome but did not report or only partially reported the results . For reports that did not mention the review primary outcome , our classification regarding the presence of outcome reporting bias was shown to have a sensitivity of 88 % ( 95 % CI 65 % to 100 % ) and specificity of 80 % ( 95 % CI 69 % to 90 % ) on the basis of responses from 62 trialists . A third of Cochrane review s ( 96/283 ( 34 % ) ) contained at least one trial with high suspicion of outcome reporting bias for the review primary outcome . In a sensitivity analysis undertaken for 81 review s with a single meta- analysis of the primary outcome of interest , the treatment effect estimate was reduced by 20 % or more in 19 ( 23 % ) . Of the 42 meta-analyses with a statistically significant result only , eight ( 19 % ) became non-significant after adjustment for outcome reporting bias and 11 ( 26 % ) would have overestimated the treatment effect by 20 % or more . Conclusions Outcome reporting bias is an under-recognised problem that affects the conclusions in a substantial proportion of Cochrane review s. Individuals conducting systematic review s need to address explicitly the issue of missing outcome data for their review to be considered a reliable source of evidence . Extra care is required during data extraction , review ers should identify when a trial reports that an outcome was measured but no results were reported or events observed , and contact with trialists should be encouraged In clinical measurement comparison of a new measurement technique with an established one is often needed to see whether they agree sufficiently for the new to replace the old . Such investigations are often analysed inappropriately , notably by using correlation coefficients . The use of correlation is misleading . An alternative approach , based on graphical techniques and simple calculations , is described , together with the relation between this analysis and the assessment of repeatability Background Systematic review s ( SRs ) can help decision makers interpret the deluge of published biomedical literature . However , a SR may be of limited use if the methods used to conduct the SR are flawed , and reporting of the SR is incomplete . To our knowledge , since 2004 there has been no cross-sectional study of the prevalence , focus , and completeness of reporting of SRs across different specialties . Therefore , the aim of our study was to investigate the epidemiological and reporting characteristics of a more recent cross-section of SRs . Methods and Findings We search ed MEDLINE to identify potentially eligible SRs indexed during the month of February 2014 . Citations were screened using prespecified eligibility criteria . Epidemiological and reporting characteristics of a r and om sample of 300 SRs were extracted by one review er , with a 10 % sample extracted in duplicate . We compared characteristics of Cochrane versus non-Cochrane review s , and the 2014 sample of SRs versus a 2004 sample of SRs . We identified 682 SRs , suggesting that more than 8,000 SRs are being indexed in MEDLINE annually , corresponding to a 3-fold increase over the last decade . The majority of SRs addressed a therapeutic question and were conducted by authors based in China , the UK , or the US ; they included a median of 15 studies involving 2,072 participants .  Meta- analysis was performed in 63 % of SRs , mostly using st and ard pairwise methods . Study risk of bias/ quality assessment was performed in 70 % of SRs but was rarely incorporated into the analysis ( 16 % ) . Few SRs ( 7 % ) search ed sources of unpublished data , and the risk of publication bias was considered in less than half of SRs . Reporting quality was highly variable ; at least a third of SRs did not report use of a SR protocol , eligibility criteria relating to publication status , years of coverage of the search , a full Boolean search logic for at least one data base , methods for data extraction , methods for study risk of bias assessment , a primary outcome , an abstract conclusion that incorporated study limitations , or the funding source of the SR . Cochrane SRs , which accounted for 15 % of the sample , had more complete reporting than all other types of SRs . Reporting has generally improved since 2004 , but remains suboptimal for many characteristics . Conclusions An increasing number of SRs are being published , and many are poorly conducted and reported . Strategies are needed to help reduce this avoidable waste in research A report of a r and omized , controlled trial ( RCT ) should convey to the reader , in a transparent manner , why the study was undertaken and how it was conducted and analyzed . For example , a lack of adequately reported r and omization has been associated with bias in estimating the effectiveness of interventions ( 1 , 2 ) . To assess the strengths and limitations of an RCT , readers need and deserve to know the quality of its methods . Despite several decades of educational efforts , RCTs still are not being reported adequately ( 3 - 6 ) . For example , a review of 122 recently published RCTs that evaluated the effectiveness of selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors as first-line management strategy for depression found that only 1 ( 0.8 % ) paper described r and omization adequately ( 5 ) . Inadequate reporting makes the interpretation of RCT results difficult if not impossible . Moreover , inadequate reporting borders on unethical practice when biased results receive false credibility . History of CONSORT In the mid-1990s , two independent initiatives to improve the quality of reports of RCTs led to the publication of the CONSORT ( Consoli date d St and ards of Reporting Trials ) statement ( 7 ) , which was developed by an international group of clinical trialists , statisticians , epidemiologists , and biomedical editors . CONSORT has been supported by a growing number of medical and health care journals ( 8 - 11 ) and editorial groups , including the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors ( ICMJE , also known as the Vancouver Group ) ( 12 ) , the Council of Science Editors ( CSE ) , and the World Association of Medical Editors ( WAME ) . CONSORT is also published in Dutch , English , French , German , Japanese , and Spanish . It can be accessed on the Internet , along with other information about the CONSORT group ( 13 ) . The CONSORT statement comprises a checklist and flow diagram for reporting an RCT . For convenience , the checklist and diagram together are called simply CONSORT . They are primarily intended for use in writing , review ing , or evaluating reports of simple two-group , parallel RCTs . Preliminary data indicate that the use of CONSORT does indeed help to improve the quality of reports of RCTs ( 14 , 15 ) . In an evaluation ( 14 ) of 71 RCTs published in three journals in 1994 , allocation concealment was not clearly reported in 43 ( 61 % ) of the RCTs . Four years later , after these three journals required that authors reporting an RCT use CONSORT , the proportion of papers in which allocation concealment was not clearly reported had dropped to 39 % ( 30 of 77 ; mean difference , 22 % [ 95 % CI of the difference , 38 % to 6 % ] ) . The usefulness of CONSORT is enhanced by continuous monitoring of the biomedical literature ; this monitoring allows CONSORT to be modified depending on the merits of maintaining or dropping current items and including new items . For example , when Meinert ( 16 ) observed that the flow diagram did not provide important information about the number of participants who entered each phase of an RCT ( enrollment , treatment allocation , follow-up , and data analysis ) , the diagram could be modified to accommo date the information . The checklist is similarly flexible . This iterative process makes the CONSORT statement a continually evolving instrument . While participants in the CONSORT group and their degree of involvement vary over time , members meet regularly to review the need to refine CONSORT . At the 1999 meeting , the participants decided to revise the original statement . This report reflects changes determined by consensus of the CONSORT group , partly in response to emerging evidence on the importance of various elements of RCTs . Revision of the CONSORT Statement Thirteen members of the CONSORT group met in May 1999 with the primary objective of revising the original CONSORT checklist and flow diagram , as needed . The group discussed the merits of including each item in the light of current evidence . As in developing the original CONSORT statement , our intention was to keep only those items deemed fundamental to reporting st and ards for an RCT . Some items not considered essential may well be highly desirable and should still be included in an RCT report even though they are not included in CONSORT . Such items include approval of an institutional ethical review board , sources of funding for the trial , and a trial registry number ( as , for example , the International St and ard R and omized Controlled Trial Number [ IS RCT N ] used to register an RCT at its inception [ 17 ] ) . Shortly after the meeting , a revised version of the checklist was circulated to the group for additional comments and feedback . Revisions to the flow diagram were similarly made . All these changes were discussed when CONSORT participants met in May 2000 , and the revised statement was finalized shortly afterward . The revised CONSORT statement includes a 22-item checklist ( Table ) and a flow diagram ( Figure ) . Its primary aim is to help authors improve the quality of reports of simple two-group , parallel RCTs . However , the basic philosophy underlying the development of the statement can be applied to any design . In this regard , additional statements for other design s will be forthcoming from the group ( 13 ) . CONSORT can also be used by peer review ers and editors to identify reports with inadequate description of trials and those with potentially biased results ( 1 , 2 ) . Table . Checklist of Items To Include When Reporting a R and omized Trial Figure . Flow diagram of the progress through the phases of a r and omized trial ( enrollment , intervention allocation , follow-up , and data analysis ) . During the 1999 meeting , the group also discussed the benefits of developing an explanatory document to enhance the use and dissemination of CONSORT . The document is patterned on reporting of statistical aspects of clinical research ( 18 ) , which was developed to help facilitate the recommendations of the ICMJE 's Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Su bmi tted to Biomedical Journals . Three members of the CONSORT group , with assistance from members on some checklist items , drafted an explanation and elaboration document . That document ( 19 ) was circulated to the group for additions and revisions and was last revised after review at the latest CONSORT group meeting . Changes to CONSORT 1 . In the revised checklist , a new column for Paper Section and Topic integrates information from the Subheading column that was contained in the original statement . 2 . The Was It Reported ? column has been integrated into a Reported on Page Number column , as requested by some journals . 3 . Each item of the checklist is now numbered , and the syntax and order have been revised to improve the flow of information . 4 . Title and Abstract are now combined in the first item . 5 . While the content of the revised checklist is similar to that of the original one , some items that previously were combined are now separate . For example , authors had been asked to describe primary and secondary outcome ( s ) measure(s ) and the minimum important difference(s ) , and indicate how the target sample size was projected . In the new version , issues pertaining to outcomes ( item 6 ) and sample size ( item 7 ) are separate , enabling authors to be more explicit about each . Moreover , some items request additional information . For example , for outcomes ( item 6 ) authors are asked to report any methods used to enhance the quality of measurements , such as multiple observations . 6 . The item asking for the unit of r and omization ( for example , cluster ) has been dropped because specific checklists have been developed for reporting cluster RCTs ( 20 ) and other design types ( 13 ) since publication of the original checklist . 7 . Whenever possible , new evidence is incorporated into the revised checklist . For example , authors are asked to be explicit about whether the analysis reported is by intention to treat ( item 16 ) . This request is based in part on the observations ( 21 ) that authors do not adequately describe and apply intention-to-treat analysis and that reports not providing this information are less likely to provide other relevant information , such as losses to follow-up ( 22 ) . 8 . The revised flow diagram depicts information from four stages of a trial ( enrollment , intervention allocation , follow-up , and analysis ) . The revised diagram explicitly includes the number of participants , for each intervention group , included in the primary data analysis . Inclusion of these numbers lets the reader know whether the authors have performed an intention-to-treat analysis ( 21 - 23 ) . Because some of the information may not always be known and to accommo date other information , the structure of the flow diagram may need to be modified for a particular trial . Inclusion of the participant flow diagram in the report is strongly recommended but may be unnecessary for simple trials , such as those without any participant withdrawals or dropouts . Discussion Specifically developed to guide authors about how to improve the quality of reporting of simple two-group , parallel RCTs , CONSORT encourages transparency with reporting of the methods and results so that reports of RCTs can be interpreted both readily and accurately . However , CONSORT does not address other facets of reporting that also require attention , 
    Output:
    
On average , meta- analysis HRs from published AD slightly tended to favour the research interventions whether based on fixed-effect ( HRAD to HRIPD ratio = 0.97 , p = 0.088 ) or r and om-effects ( HRAD to HRIPD ratio = 0.96 , p = 0.044 ) models , but the limits of agreement show that for individual meta-analyses , agreement was much more variable .
We utilised the results to construct a decision tree for assessing whether an AD meta- analysis includes sufficient information , and when estimates of effects are most likely to be reliable .
In this study we found that HRs from published AD were most likely to agree with those from IPD when the information size was large .