Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2007 Jul 5:7:32.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-32.

Systematic reviews of adverse effects: framework for a structured approach

Yoon K Loke  1 , Deirdre Price, Andrew Herxheimer; Cochrane Adverse Effects Methods Group
Affiliations

Systematic reviews of adverse effects: framework for a structured approach

Yoon K Loke et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Background: As every healthcare intervention carries some risk of harm, clinical decision making needs to be supported by a systematic assessment of the balance of benefit to harm. A systematic review that considers only the favourable outcomes of an intervention, without also assessing the adverse effects, can mislead by introducing a bias favouring the intervention. Much of the current guidance on systematic reviews is directed towards the evaluation of effectiveness; but this differs in important ways from the methods used in assessing the safety and tolerability of an intervention. A detailed discussion of why, how and when to include adverse effects in a systematic review, is required.

Methods: This discussion paper, which presupposes a basic knowledge of systematic review methodology, was developed by consensus among experienced reviewers, members of the Adverse Effects Subgroup of The Cochrane Collaboration, and supplemented by a consultation of content experts in reviews methodology, as well as those working in drug safety.

Results: A logical framework for making decisions in reviews that incorporate adverse effects is provided. We explore situations where a comprehensive investigation of adverse effects is warranted and suggest strategies to identify practicable and clinically useful outcomes. The advantages and disadvantages of including observational and experimental study designs are reviewed. The consequences of including separate studies for intended and unintended effects are explained. Detailed advice is given on designing electronic searches for studies with adverse effects data. Reviewers of adverse effects are given general guidance on the assessment of study bias, data collection, analysis, presentation and the interpretation of harms in a systematic review.

Conclusion: Readers need to be able to recognize how strategic choices made in the review process determine what harms are found, and how the findings may affect clinical decisions. Researchers undertaking a systematic review that incorporates adverse effect data should understand the rationale for the suggested methods and be able to implement them in their review.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Golder S, Loke Y, McIntosh HM. Room for improvement? A survey of the methods used in systematic reviews of adverse effects. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:3. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-3. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Higgins J, Green S, editors . The Cochrane Library. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2005. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.5 [updated May 2005]
    1. Loke YK. Assessing the benefit-harm balance at the bedside. BMJ. 2004;329:7–8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.329.7456.7. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jefferson T, Price D, Demicheli V, Bianco E. Unintended events following immunization with MMR: a systematic review. Vaccine. 2003;21:3954–3960. doi: 10.1016/S0264-410X(03)00271-8. - DOI - PubMed
    1. McIntosh HM, Woolacott NF, Bagnall AM. Assessing harmful effects in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2004;4:19. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-4-19. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms