On the criteria used for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses addressing adverse effects

European Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 249-250

  Bonovas, Stefanos ^a,b   Lytras, Theodore ^c,d,e   Nikolopoulos, Georgios ^e,f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

^b MARIO NEGRI INSTITUTE FOR PHARMACOLOGICAL RESEARCH   (Italy)

^c CENTRE FOR RESEARCH IN ENVIRONMENTAL EPIDEMIOLOGY CREAL   (Spain)

^d UNIVERSITAT POMPEU FABRA   (Spain)

^e Hellenic Centre for Disease Control and Prevention   (Greece)

^f NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH INSTITUTES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RISK; SELECTION BIAS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; RISK; SELECTION BIAS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84930917607     PISSN: 03932990     EISSN: 15737284     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10654-015-0015-8     Document Type: Letter

References (11)

1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–9 W64.
2. Savovic J, Jones HE, Altman DG, Harris RJ, Jüni P, Pildal J, Als-Nielsen B, Balk EM, Gluud C, Gluud LL, Ioannidis JP, Schulz KF, Beynon R, Welton NJ, Wood L, Moher D, Deeks JJ, Sterne JA. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized controlled trials. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:429–38.
3. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JA. Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. www.cochrane-handbook.org.
4. Loke YK, Price D, Herxheimer A. Chapter 14: adverse effects. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. www.cochrane-handbook.org.
5. Viswanathan M, Ansari MT, Berkman ND, Chang S, Hartling L, McPheeters LM, Santaguida PL, Shamliyan T, Singh K, Tsertsvadze A, Treadwell JR. Assessing the risk of bias of individual studies in systematic reviews of health care interventions. Agency for healthcare research and quality methods guide for comparative effectiveness reviews. March 2012. AHRQ Publication No. 12-EHC047-EF. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov.
6. Singh JA, Wells GA, Christensen R, Tanjong Ghogomu E, Maxwell L, Macdonald JK, Filippini G, Skoetz N, Francis D, Lopes LC, Guyatt GH, Schmitt J, La Mantia L, Weberschock T, Roos JF, Siebert H, Hershan S, Lunn MP, Tugwell P, Buchbinder R. Adverse effects of biologics: a network meta-analysis and Cochrane overview. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;2:CD008794.
7. Narum S, Westergren T, Klemp M. Corticosteroids and risk of gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e004587.
8. Moja L, Lucenteforte E, Kwag KH, Bertele V, Campomori A, Chakravarthy U, D’Amico R, Dickersin K, Kodjikian L, Lindsley K, Loke Y, Maguire M, Martin DF, Mugelli A, Mühlbauer B, Püntmann I, Reeves B, Rogers C, Schmucker C, Subramanian ML, Virgili G. Systemic safety of bevacizumab versus ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;9:CD011230.
9. Olsen H, Klemetsrud T, Stokke HP, Tretli S, Westheim A. Adverse drug reactions in current antihypertensive therapy: a general practice survey of 2586 patients in Norway. Blood Press. 1999;8:94–101.
10. Stephens MD, Talbot JC, Routledge PA, editors. The Detection of new adverse reactions. 4th ed. Macmillan Reference: London; 1998.
11. Strom BL, Kimmel SE, Hennessy S, editors. Pharmacoepidemiology. 5th ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2012.