Compared to previous studies that reported the association between PPI use and the risk for CAP (but not hospital-acquired pneumonia) [ 15- 17], the exclusion of aspiration pneumonia was not explicitly mentioned in their studies, which could be one of the possible explanations for the discrepancy of reported findings between ours and other studies.
Such a discrepancy of reported studies might be explained by different tumor sites and tumor progression features, ethnic difference with diverse genetic background, different therapeutic strategies, and either false negative or false positive results because of the small sample sizes in previously published studies.
The figure of 57 % overall discrepancy between the originally planned outcomes and those reported in the final application is consistent with previous literature where discrepancies in reporting of primary outcomes were found in 62-66 % of clinical trials [ 21, 22].
To maximise information on reasons for discrepancies in reporting of primary outcomes, investigators from all trials included in a Cochrane review that were suspected of outcome reporting bias for the review primary outcome were approached for interview (n=85).
The large CARDIA cohort allowed examination of demographic and other predictors of reporting discrepancy.
For this reason, estimates of the frequencies of various discrepancies in reporting 6 are based only on data from the randomly selected cohort identified from PubMed.
Estimates of the frequencies of various discrepancies in reporting are based only on data from the randomly selected cohort identified from PubMed, because trials identified from the ORBIT project were not randomly selected.
Ghersi [17] did examine the effect of funding in terms of reporting and discrepancies of outcomes but no information about the results is currently available.
Only the youngest males, for instance, showed any statistically significant probability of reporting weight discrepancy compared to the reference group and after adjustment for other covariates.
Thus, the least common discrepancy observed- in terms of reporting no treatment need whilst having impacts were most frequent in urban areas and among children in the less poor wealth categories.
The companion WHODAS performed better than the participant version in the longitudinal analysis and there was a discrepancy in reporting of function between participants and companions in the high group.
