Conducting separate reviews of benefits and harms could improve systematic reviews and meta-analyses

被引：4
作者：
Mayo-Wilson, Evan [1 ]
Qureshi, Riaz [2 ]
Li, Tianjing [2 ]
机构：
[1] UNC Gillings Sch Global Publ Hlth, Dept Epidemiol, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 USA
[2] Univ Colorado, Sch Med, Dept Ophthalmol, Anschutz Med Campus, Aurora, CO USA
来源：
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS | 2023年 / 12卷 / 01期
关键词：
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIALS; ADVERSE EVENTS; DRUG SAFETY; INTERVENTIONS; PROTOCOLS; BIAS;
D O I：
10.1186/s13643-023-02234-0
中图分类号：
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号：
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要：
Guidance for systematic reviews of interventions recommends both benefits and harms be included. Systematic reviews may reach conclusions about harms (or lack of harms) that are not true when reviews include only some relevant studies, rely on incomplete data from eligible studies, use inappropriate methods for synthesizing data, and report results selectively. Separate reviews about harms could address some of these problems, and we argue that conducting separate reviews of harms is a feasible alternative to current standards and practices. Systematic reviews of potential benefits could be organized around the use of interventions for specific health problems. Systematic reviews of potential harms could be broader, including more diverse study designs and including all people at risk of harms (who might use the same intervention to treat different health problems). Multiple reviews about benefits could refer to a single review of harms. This approach could improve the reliability, completeness, and efficiency of systematic reviews.
引用
收藏
页数：5
相关论文
共 75 条
[1]   An appraisal of meta-analysis guidelines: how do they relate to safety outcomes? [J].
Bennetts, Meg ;
Whalen, Ed ;
Ahadieh, Sima ;
Cappelleri, Joseph C. .
RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2017, 8 (01) :64-78
[2]   Good Practices for Real-World Data Studies of Treatment and/or Comparative Effectiveness: Recommendations from the Joint ISPOR-ISPE Special Task Force on Real-World Evidence in Health Care Decision Making [J].
Berger, Marc L. ;
Sox, Harold ;
Willke, Richard J. ;
Brixner, Diana L. ;
Eichler, Hans-Georg ;
Goettsch, Wim ;
Madigan, David ;
Makady, Amr ;
Schneeweiss, Sebastian ;
Tarricone, Rosanna ;
Wang, Shirley V. ;
Watkins, John ;
Mullins, C. Daniel .
VALUE IN HEALTH, 2017, 20 (08) :1003-1008
[3]   'Dark logic': theorising the harmful consequences of public health interventions [J].
Bonell, Chris ;
Jamal, Farah ;
Melendez-Torres, G. J. ;
Cummins, Steven .
JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH, 2015, 69 (01) :95-98
[4]   Much ado about nothing: a comparison of the performance of meta-analytical methods with rare events [J].
Bradburn, Michael J. ;
Deeks, Jonathan J. ;
Berlin, Jesse A. ;
Localio, A. Russell .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2007, 26 (01) :53-77
[5]   Challenges in systematic reviews that assess treatment harms [J].
Chou, R ;
Helfand, M .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2005, 142 (12) :1090-1099
[6]  
Chou R., 2008, Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews
[7]   AHRQ Series Paper 4: Assessing harms when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health-Care Program [J].
Chou, Roger ;
Aronson, Naomi ;
Atkins, David ;
Ismaila, Afisi S. ;
Santaguida, Pasqualina ;
Smith, David H. ;
Whitlock, Evelyn ;
Wilt, Timothy J. ;
Moher, David .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2010, 63 (05) :502-512
[8]  
Clarke M, 2016, SYST REV-LONDON, V5, DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0188-6
[9]   Systematic reviews of adverse effects of drug interventions: a survey of their conduct and reporting quality [J].
Cornelius, V. R. ;
Perrio, M. J. ;
Shakir, S. A. W. ;
Smith, L. A. .
PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, 2009, 18 (12) :1223-1231
[10]   Adverse event reporting in randomised controlled trials of neuropathic pain: Considerations for future practice [J].
Cornelius, Victoria R. ;
Sauzet, Odile ;
Williams, John E. ;
Ayis, Salma ;
Farquhar-Smith, Paul ;
Ross, Joy R. ;
Branford, Ruth A. ;
Peacock, Janet L. .
PAIN, 2013, 154 (02) :213-220
12345678