Poor reporting and inadequate searches were apparent in systematic reviews of adverse effects

被引:73
|
作者
Golder, Su [1 ]
Loke, Yoon [2 ]
McIntosh, Heather M.
机构
[1] Univ York, CRD, York YO10 5DD, N Yorkshire, England
[2] Univ E Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, Norfolk, England
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
systematic review; literature review; adverse effects; information retrieval; meta-analysis; database;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.06.005
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: Systematic reviews incorporating adverse effects are assuming increasing importance as questions raised extend beyond clinical effectiveness to all effects (beneficial and harmful). The aim of this study was to survey the methods used to identify relevant studies for systematic reviews of adverse effects. Study Design and Setting: All records within the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were scanned for systematic reviews in which the primary outcomes were adverse effects. Two information professionals independently assessed the methods used to identify relevant research as reported in the 277 reviews that met the inclusion criteria. Results: A major weakness of the reviews was inadequate reporting of the search strategies used. In addition, of the reviews that did report a search strategy, few used the sensitive search strategies recommended for systematic reviews. The majority of reviews did not search more than one or two databases, and few other methods of identifying information were used. Conclusion: This investigation shows the variation in the searching element of systematic reviews of adverse effects and demonstrates that the reporting of the methods used to identify research in such reviews could be vastly improved. (c) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:440 / 448
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Biases in reporting of adverse effects in clinical trials, and potential impact on safety assessments in systematic reviews and therapy guidelines
    Westergren, Tone
    Narum, Sigrid
    Klemp, Marianne
    BASIC & CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY & TOXICOLOGY, 2022, 131 (06) : 465 - 473
  • [32] The reporting completeness and transparency of systematic reviews of prognostic prediction models for COVID-19 was poor: a methodological overview of systematic reviews
    Talimtzi, Persefoni
    Ntolkeras, Antonios
    Kostopoulos, Georgios
    Bougioukas, Konstantinos I.
    Pagkalidou, Eirini
    Ouranidis, Andreas
    Pataka, Athanasia
    Haidich, Anna -Bettina
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2024, 167
  • [33] Methods and reporting of systematic reviews of comparative accuracy were deficient: a methodological survey and proposed guidance
    Takwoingi, Yemisi
    Partlett, Christopher
    Riley, Richard D.
    Hyde, Chris
    Deeks, Jonathan J.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2020, 121 : 1 - 14
  • [34] Systematic reviews experience major limitations in reporting absolute effects
    Alonso-Coello, Pablo
    Carrasco-Labra, Alonso
    Brignardello-Petersen, Romina
    Neumann, Ignacio
    Akl, Elie A.
    Vernooij, Robin W. M.
    Johnston, Brad C.
    Sun, Xin
    Briel, Matthias
    Busse, Jason W.
    Ebrahim, Shanil
    Granados, Carlos E.
    Iorio, Alfonso
    Irfan, Affan
    Martinez Garcia, Laura
    Mustafa, Reem A.
    Ramirez-Morera, Anggie
    Selva, Anna
    Sola, Ivan
    Juliana Sanabria, Andrea
    Tikkinen, Kari A. O.
    Vandvik, Per Olav
    Zazueta, Oscar E.
    Zhang, Yuqing
    Zhou, Qi
    Schuenemann, Holger
    Guyatt, Gordon H.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2016, 72 : 16 - 26
  • [35] Methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews on health effects of air pollutants were higher than extreme temperatures: a comparative study
    Xuping Song
    Qiyin Luo
    Liangzhen Jiang
    Yan Ma
    Yue Hu
    Yunze Han
    Rui Wang
    Jing Tang
    Yiting Guo
    Qitao Zhang
    Zhongyu Ma
    Yunqi Zhang
    Xinye Guo
    Shumei Fan
    Chengcheng Deng
    Xinyu Fu
    Yaolong Chen
    Kehu Yang
    Long Ge
    Shigong Wang
    BMC Public Health, 23
  • [36] Methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews on health effects of air pollutants were higher than extreme temperatures: a comparative study
    Song, Xuping
    Luo, Qiyin
    Jiang, Liangzhen
    Ma, Yan
    Hu, Yue
    Han, Yunze
    Wang, Rui
    Tang, Jing
    Guo, Yiting
    Zhang, Qitao
    Ma, Zhongyu
    Zhang, Yunqi
    Guo, Xinye
    Fan, Shumei
    Deng, Chengcheng
    Fu, Xinyu
    Chen, Yaolong
    Yang, Kehu
    Ge, Long
    Wang, Shigong
    BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, 2023, 23 (01)
  • [37] Prostate Artery Embolisation: Poor Design and Reporting Impact the Value of Current Systematic Reviews
    Vreugdenburg, Thomas D.
    Cameron, Alun L.
    Wild, Claudia
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2018, 73 (04) : 642 - 643
  • [38] Poor Methodological Quality but Higher Reporting Standards Seen in Systematic Reviews in Radiation Dermatitis
    Wasiak, J.
    Tyack, Z.
    Tacey, M.
    Young, A.
    Shen, A.
    Faggion, C. M. Jnr
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2019, 105 (01): : E462 - E462
  • [39] Spin in the reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation of adverse effects of orthodontic interventions: protocol for a cross-sectional study of systematic reviews
    Pauline A. J. Steegmans
    Nicola Di Girolamo
    Reint A. Meursinge Reynders
    Research Integrity and Peer Review, 4
  • [40] Spin in the reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation of adverse effects of orthodontic interventions: protocol for a cross-sectional study of systematic reviews
    Steegmans, Pauline A. J.
    Di Girolamo, Nicola
    Reynders, Reint A. Meursinge
    RESEARCH INTEGRITY AND PEER REVIEW, 2019, 4 (01)