Some improvements are apparent in identifying adverse effects in systematic reviews from 1994 to 2011

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 66, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 253-260

  Golder, Su ^a   Loke, Yoon K ^b   Zorzela, Liliane ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Adverse effects; Bibliographic databases; Harms; Information storage and retrieval; Literature review; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

ACUPUNCTURE; ADVERSE DRUG REACTION; DATA BASE; DOCUMENTATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; STUDY DESIGN; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC);

DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; DRUG TOXICITY; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; THERAPEUTICS;

EID: 84872792216     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.09.013     Document Type: Review

References (73)

1. Y.K. Loke, D. Price, A. Herxheimer Cochrane Adverse Effects Methods Group Systematic reviews of adverse effects: framework for a structured approach BMC Med Res Methodol 7 2007 32
2. Updated March 2011 J.P.T. Higgins, and S. Green Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration
3. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in healthcare 3rd ed. 2009 University of York, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination York
4. D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, D.G. Altman, and T.P. Group Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement PLoS Med 6 2009 e1000097
5. A. Liberati, D.G. Altman, J. Tetzlaff, C. Mulrow, P.C. Gotzche, and J.P.A. Ioannidis The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration J Clin Epidemiol 62 2009 e1 e34
6. H. Sacks, J. Berrier, D. Reitman, V.A. Ancona-Berk, and T.C. Chalmers Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials N Engl J Med 316 1987 450 455
7. A.R. Jadad, and H.J. McQuay Meta-analyses to evaluate analgesic interventions: a systematic qualitative review of their methodology J Clin Epidemiol 49 1996 235 243
8. K. Rigby, C. Silagy, and A. Crockett Health economic reviews. Are they compiled systematically? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 12 3 1996 450 459
9. A.F. Smith An analysis of review articles published in four anaesthesia journals Can J Anaesth 44 4 1997 405 409
10. R.A. Breslow, S.A. Ross, and D.L. Weed Quality of reviews in epidemiology Am J Public Health 88 1998 475 477
11. Brazier H, editor. Systematic reviews depend on systematic literature searches. The Sixth European Conference of Medical and Health Libraries Without Limits: Changing Needs - Changing Roles. Utrecht, The Netherlands: EAHIL/AEBIS; June 22-27, 1998.
12. Brazier H, editor. Poorly executed and inadequately documented? An analysis of the literature searches on which systematic reviews are based. Presented at the 2nd Symposium on Systematic Reviews: Beyond the Basics. Oxford, UK; January 5-7, 1999.
13. A.R. Jadad, M. Moher, G.P. Browman, L. Booker, C. Sigouin, and M. Fuentes Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation BMJ 320 2000 537 540
14. C. Choi, S.D. Halpern, N. Malik, A.R. Jadad, M.R. Tramer, and B. Walder Examining the evidence in anesthesia literature: a critical appraisal of systematic reviews Anesth Analg 92 2001 700 709
15. K. Kelly, A. Travers, M. Dorgan, L. Slater, and B. Rowe Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature Ann Emerg Med 38 5 2001 518 526
16. D. Moher, K. Soeken, M. Sampson, L. Ben-Porat, and B. Berman Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews in pediatric complementary and alternative medicine BMC Pediatr 2 2002 3
17. B. Shea, D. Moher, I. Graham, B.A. Pham, and P. Tugwell A comparison of the quality of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in paper-based journals Eval Health Prof 25 1 2002 116 129
18. A. Glenny, M. Esposito, P. Coulthard, and H. Worthington The assessment of systematic reviews in dentistry Eur J Oral Sci 111 2 2003 85 92
19. K. Linde, and S.N. Willich How objective are systematic reviews? Differences between reviews on complementary medicine J R Soc Med 96 2003 17 22
20. E. Dixon, M. Hameed, F. Sutherland, D.J. Cook, and C. Doig Evaluating meta-analyses in the general surgical literature. A critical appraisal Ann Surg 241 2005 450 459
21. A. Delaney, S.M. Bagshaw, A. Ferland, B. Manns, K.B. Laupland, and C.J. Doig A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature Crit Care 9 2005 R575 R582
22. A. Booth "Brimful of STARLITE": toward standards for reporting literature searches J Med Libr Assoc 94 4 2006 421 429
23. C. Flores-Mir, M.P. Major, and M.P. W Search and selection methodology of systematic reviews in orthodontics (2000-2004) Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 130 2 2006 214 217
24. M. Sampson, and J. McGowan Errors in search strategies were identified by type and frequency J Clin Epidemiol 59 2006 1057 1063
25. B. Shea, L.M. Boutrer, J.M. Grimshaw, D. Francis, Z. Ortiz, and G.A. Wells Scope for improvement in the quality of reporting of systematic reviews. From the cochrance musculoskeletal group J Rheumatol 33 1 2006 9 15
26. M.P. Major, P.W. Major, and C. Flores-Mir Benchmarking of reported search and selection methods of systematic reviews by dental speciality Evid Based Dent 8 2007 66 70
27. Shang H, Zhang J, Zhang B, Youping L, editors. Methodology and quality of reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traditional Chinese medicine. XV Cochrane Colloquium. Sao Paulo, Brazil; October 2007.
28. M. Sampson, J. McGowan, J. Tetzlaff, E. Cogo, and D. Moher No consensus exists on search reporting methods for systematic reviews J Clin Epidemiol 61 2008 748 754
29. A. Roundtree, M. Kallen, M. Lopezolivo, B. Kimmel, B. Skidmore, and Z. Ortiz Poor reporting of search strategy and conflict of interest in over 250 narrative and systematic reviews of two biologic agents in arthritis: a systematic review J Clin Epidemiol 62 2009 128 137
30. A. Yoshii, D. Plaut, K.A. McGraw, M.J. Anderson, and K.E. Wellik Analysis of the reporting of search strategies in Cochrane systematic reviews J Med Libr Assoc 97 1 2009 21 29
31. P. Fehrmann, and J. Thomas Comprehensive computer searches and reporting in systematic reviews Res Synh Methods 2 2011 15 32
32. L.A. Maggio, N.H. Tannery, and S.L. Kanter Reproducibility of literature search reporting in medical education reviews Acad Med 86 8 2011 1049 1054
33. S. Golder, Y. Loke, and H.M. McIntosh Room for improvement? A survey of the methods used in systematic reviews of adverse effects BMC Med Res Methodol 6 2006 3
34. V.R. Cornelius, M.J. Perrio, S.A. Shakir, and L.A. Smith Systematic reviews of adverse effects of drug interventions: a survey of their conduct and reporting quality Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 18 2009 1223 1231
35. S. Golder, Y. Loke, and H.M. McIntosh Poor reporting and inadequate searches were apparent in systematic reviews of adverse effects J Clin Epidemiol 61 2008 440 448
36. S. Hopewell, L. Wolfenden, and M. Clarke Reporting of adverse events in systematic reviews can be improved: survey results J Clin Epidemiol 61 2008 597 602
37. J. Wen, Y. Ren, L. Wang, Y. Li, Y. Liu, and M. Zhou The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: a random sampling study J Clin Epidemiol 61 2008 770 775
38. A.M. Moseley, M.R. Elkins, R.D. Herbert, C.G. Maher, and C. Sherrington Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy J Clin Epidemiol 62 2009 1 10
39. M.P. Major, P.W. Major, and C. Flores-Mir An evaluation of search and selection methods used in dental systematic reviews published in English J Am Dent Assoc 137 2006 1252 1257
40. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD). About DARE. 2008 [Updated 2008]; Available at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/crdweb/html/help.htm. Accessed 23 October, 2008.
41. M. Petticrew, F. Song, P. Wilson, and K. Wright Quality-assessed reviews of health care interventions and the database of abstracts of reviews of effectiveness (DARE) Int J Technol Assess Health Care 15 4 1999 671 678
42. L. Remy, T. Clay, and G. Oliva Do We Have a Linear Trend? A Beginner's Approach to Analysis of Trends in Community Health Indicators Updated 2005 2005 University of California, San Francisco, Family Health Outcomes Project San Francisco, CA Available at http://fhop.ucsf.edu/fhop/docs/pdf/mcah/TREND13.pdf Accessed May 25, 2012
43. E. Ernst, and M.H. Pittler Assessment of therapeutic safety in systematic reviews: literature review BMJ 323 2001 546
44. Vandermeer B, Bialy L, Johnston B, Hooton N, Hartling L, Klassen T, et al. Meta-analyses of safety data: a comparison of exact versus asymptotic methods [Abstract]. XIV Cochrane Colloquium. Dublin, Ireland; October 23-26, 2006:53.
45. S. Hopewell, L. Wolfenden, and M. Clarke Reporting of adverse events in systematic reviews can be imporved: survey results J Clin Epidemiol 61 2007 597 602
46. D. Moher, J. Tetzlaff, A.C. Tricco, M. Sampson, and D.G. Altman Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews PLoS Med 4 2007 e78
47. H.M. McIntosh, N.F. Woolacott, and A.M. Bagnall Assessing harmful effects in systematic reviews BMC Med Res Methodol 4 2004 19
48. R. Chou, and M. Helfand Challenges in systematic reviews that assess treatment harms Ann Intern Med 142 12 Pt 2 2005 1090 1099
49. M. Etminan, B. Carleton, and P.A. Rochon Quantifying adverse drug events: are systematic reviews the answer? Drug Saf 27 11 2004 757 761
50. M.D. Hughes, and P.L. Williams Challenges in using observational studies to evaluate adverse effects of treatment N Engl J Med 356 2007 1705 1707
51. K.L. Hyrich Assessing the safety of biologic therapies in rheumatoid arthritis: the challenges of study design J Rheumatol Suppl 72 2005 48 50
52. J.P. Vandenbroucke When are observational studies as credible as randomised trials? Lancet 363 2004 1728 1731
53. J.P. Vandenbroucke What is the best evidence for determining harms of medical treatment? CMAJ 174 2006 645 646
54. S. Golder, Y.K. Loke, and M. Bland Meta-analyses of adverse effects data derived from randomised controlled trials as compared to observational studies: methodological overview PLoS Med 8 2011
55. D.F. Stroup, J.A. Berlin, S.C. Morton, I. Olkin, G.D. Williamson, and D. Rennie Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting JAMA 283 2000 2008 2012
56. INAHTA A checklist for health technology assessment reports Updated 2001 2001 INAHTA Secretariat Available at www.dimdi.de/static/de/hta/methoden/ sammlung/inahtachecklist.pdf Accessed June 29, 2006
57. The AGREE Collaboration Appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation Updated 2001 2001 The AGREE Collaboration Available at http://www.agreecollaboration.org/pdf/agreeinstrumentfinal.pdf Accessed June 29, 2006
58. M. Egger, G. Davey Smith, M. Schneider, and C. Minder Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test BMJ 315 1997 629 634
59. D. Helmer, I. Savoie, C. Green, and A. Kazanjian Evidence-based practice: extending the search to find material for the systematic review Bull Med Libr Assoc 89 4 2001 346 352
60. I. Savoie, D. Helmer, C.J. Green, and A. Kazanjian Beyond Medline: reducing bias through extended systematic review search Int J Technol Assess Health Care 19 1 2003 168 178
61. E.T. Crumley, N. Wiebe, K. Cramer, T.P. Klassen, and L. Hartling Which resources should be used to identify RCT/CCTs for systematic reviews: a systematic review BMC Med Res Methodol 5 2005 24
62. M. Subirana, I. Sola, J.M. Garcia, I. Gich, and G. Urrutia A nursing qualitative systematic review required MEDLINE and CINAHL for study identification J Clin Epidemiol 58 2005 20 25
63. Bagnall AM, Jones L, Glanville J, Kleijnen J. Assessing adverse events in a systematic review of atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia. Fourth Symposium on Systematic Reviews: Pushing the Boundaries. Oxford, UK; July 2002.
64. O. Biarez, B. Sarrut, C.G. Doreau, and J. Etienne Comparison and evaluation of nine bibliographic databases concerning adverse drug reactions DICP 25 10 1991 1062 1065
65. S. Golder, H.M. McIntosh, S. Duffy, and J. Glanville Developing efficient search strategies to identify reports of adverse effects in MEDLINE and EMBASE Health Info Libr J 23 1 2006 3 12
66. M. Madden, and A. MacDonald An evaluation and comparison of nine drug information retrieval services Drug Inf J 11 1 1977 47 59
67. M.K. Roush, R.A. McNutt, and T. Flint Gray The adverse effect dilemma: quest for accessible information Ann Intern Med 114 1991 298 299
68. R.V. Sodha, and T. Van Amelsvoort Multi-database searches in biomedicine: citation duplication and novelty assessment using carbamazepine as an example J Inf Sci 20 1994 139 141
69. Thomson Scientific. Derwent drug file: definitive drug journal and conference information. Thomson Scientific and American Medical Association. Updated 2004; Available at http://scientific.thomson.com/media/dw/productpdfs/ ddf-compare.pdf. Accessed June 27, 2006.
70. N. Van Putte A comparison of four biomedical databases for the retrieval of drug literature Health Inf Lib 3 3 1991 119 127
71. S. Golder, and Y.K. Loke Sources of information on adverse effects: a systematic review Health Info Libr J 27 3 2010 176 190
72. E.J. Huth Needed: review articles with more scientific rigor Ann Intern Med 106 1987 470 471
73. American Medical Association. Instructions for authors 2006 Updated 2006. Available at http://jama.ama-assn.org/ifora-current.dtl. Accessed June 27, 2006.