Effect of interactive cognitive-motor training in older adults: did the authors selectively report outcomes? Comment on Kao et al (2018)

Empty systematic reviews: Identifying gaps in knowledge or a waste of time and effort?

“…We also note that the manipulation of outcomes is prevalent (see, e.g., Gray et al 8 9 ; Gray, Mackay, Waters, and Brown, 10 ) in nursing science and can and does distort the evidence base.…”

“…We would hope that reviewers and editors of our manuscript would give us credit for our methodological rigor. We also note that the manipulation of outcomes is prevalent (see, e.g., Gray et al 8 ; Gray, Mackay, Waters and Brown 9 ; Gray, Mackay, Waters, and Brown, 10 ) in nursing science and can and does distort the evidence base.…”

Nursing Reports: Annual Report Card 2021

“…Pre-registration is important for multiple reasons but primarily because it reduces the risk of selective outcome bias [3,4]. I have written extensively on the importance of preregistration and on how nursing as a discipline has been slow to embrace this agenda, see for example [5]. None of the primary research studies we published in 2021 were pre-registered.…”

The need for clarity and consistency in defining and reporting primary outcomes

“…The particular issue that Gray points out, a discrepancy between the originally stated primary outcome and the primary in a particular report is a common one (Goldacre et al, 2019). We have seen other recent examples in papers that we have published (Chou, 2020, Gray et al, 2020. A common feature of the response from the authors is an apparent naivety concerning the importance of clearly and consistently stating the primary outcome.…”