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
. 2018 Jan 16;1(1):MR000039.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000039.pub2.

Eliciting adverse effects data from participants in clinical trials

Elizabeth N Allen  1 , Clare Ir Chandler, Nyaradzo Mandimika, Cordelia Leisegang, Karen Barnes
Affiliations

Eliciting adverse effects data from participants in clinical trials

Elizabeth N Allen et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Analysis of drug safety in clinical trials involves assessing adverse events (AEs) individually or by aggregate statistical synthesis to provide evidence of likely adverse drug reactions (ADR). While some AEs may be ascertained from physical examinations or tests, there is great reliance on reports from participants to detect subjective symptoms, where he/she is often the only source of information. There is no consensus on how these reports should be elicited, although it is known that questioning methods influence the extent and nature of data detected. This leaves room for measurement error and undermines comparisons between studies and pooled analyses. This review investigated comparisons of methods used in trials to elicit participant-reported AEs. This should contribute to knowledge about the methodological challenges and possible solutions for achieving better, or more consistent, AE ascertainment in trials.

Objectives: To systematically review the research that has compared methods used within clinical drug trials (or methods that would be specific for such trials) to elicit information about AEs defined in the protocol or in the planning for the trial.

Search methods: Databases (searched to March 2015 unless indicated otherwise) included: Embase; MEDLINE; MEDLINE in Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations; Cochrane Methodology Register (July 2012); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (February 2015); Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (January 2015); Health Technology Assessment database (January 2015); CINAHL; CAB Abstracts; BIOSIS (July 2013); Science Citation Index; Social Science Citation Index; Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science. The search used thesaurus headings and synonyms for the following concepts: (A): Adverse events AND measurement; (B): Participants AND elicitation (also other synonyms for extraction of information about adverse effects from people); (C): Participants AND checklists (also other synonyms as for B). Pragmatic ways were used to limit the results whilst trying to maintain sensitivity. There were no date or sample size restrictions but only reports published in English were included fully, because of resource constraints as regards translation.

Selection criteria: Two types of studies were included: drug trials comparing two or more methods within- or between-participants to elicit participant-reported AEs, and research studies performed outside the context of a trial to compare methods which could be used in trials (evidenced by reference to such applicability). Primary outcome data included AEs elicited from participants taking part in any such clinical trial. We included any participant-reported data relevant for an assessment of drug-related harm, using the original authors' terminology (and definition, where available), with comment on whether the data were likely to be treatment-emergent AEs or not.

Data collection and analysis: Titles and abstracts were independently reviewed for eligibility. Full texts of potentially eligible citations were independently reviewed for final eligibility. Relevant data were extracted and subjected to a 100% check. Disagreements were resolved by discussion, involving a third author. The risk of bias was independently assessed by two authors. The Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool was used for reports comparing outcomes between participants, while for within-participant comparisons, each study was critically evaluated in terms of potential impact of the design and conduct on findings using the framework of selection, performance, detection, attrition, reporting, and other biases. An attempt was made to contact authors to retrieve protocols or specific relevant missing information. Reports were not excluded on the basis of quality unless data for outcomes were impossible to compare (e.g. where denominators differed). A narrative synthesis was conducted because differences in study design and presentation meant that a quantitative meta-analysis was not possible.

Main results: The 33 eligible studies largely compared open questions with checklist-type questions or rating scales. Two included participant interviews. Despite different designs, populations and details of questioning methods, the narrative review showed that more specific questioning of participants led to more AEs detected compared to a more general enquiry. A subset of six studies suggested that more severe, bothersome, or otherwise clinically relevant AEs were reported when an initial open enquiry was used, while some less severe, bothersome, or clinically relevant AEs were only reported with a subsequent specific enquiry. However, two studies showed that quite severe or debilitating AEs were only detected by an interview, while other studies did not find a difference in the nature of AEs between elicitation methods. No conclusions could be made regarding the impact of question method on the ability to detect a statistically significant difference between study groups. There was no common statistical rubric, but we were able to represent some effect measures as a risk ratio of the proportion of participants with at least one AE. This showed a lower level of reporting for open questions (O) compared to checklists (CL), with a range for the risk ratios of 0.12 to 0.64.

Authors' conclusions: This review supports concerns that methods to elicit participant-reported AEs influence the detection of these data. There was a risk for under-detection of AEs in studies using a more general elicitation method compared to those using a comprehensive method. These AEs may be important from a clinical perspective or for patients. This under-detection could compromise ability to pool AE data. However, the impact on the nature of the AE detected by different methods is unclear. The wide variety and low quality of methods to compare elicitation strategies limited this review. Future studies would be improved by using and reporting clear definitions and terminology for AEs (and other important variables), frequency and time period over which they were ascertained, how they were graded, assessed for a relationship to the study drug, coded, and tabulated/reported. While the many potential AE endpoints in a trial may preclude the development of general AE patient-reported outcome measurement instruments, much could also be learnt from how these employ both quantitative and qualitative methods to better understand data elicited. Any chosen questioning method needs to be feasible for use by both staff and participants.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The review authors have no interests to declare.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

Allen 2013 {published data only}
    1. Allen EN, Mushi AK, Massawe IS, Vestergaard LS, Lemnge M, Staedke SG, et al. How experiences become data: the process of eliciting adverse event, medical history and concomitant medication reports in antimalarial and antiretroviral trials. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2013;13:140. - PMC - PubMed
Avery 1967 {published data only}
    1. Avery CW, Ibelle BP, Allison B, Mandell N. Systematic errors in the evaluation of side effects. American Journal of Psychiatry 1967;123(7):875‐8. - PubMed
Barber 1995 {published data only}
    1. Barber BL, Santanello NC. Relating spontaneous adverse experience reports to scores on a questionnaire querying tolerability. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 1995;33(11):598‐604. - PubMed
Barrowman 1970 {published data only}
    1. Barrowman JA, Herxheimer A, Kits TP. Unwanted effects of pentagastrin. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 1970;11(6):862‐8. - PubMed
Bent 2006 {published data only}
    1. Bent S, Padula A, Avins AL. Brief communication: Better ways to question patients about adverse medical events: a randomized, controlled trial. Annals of Internal Medicine 2006;144(4):257‐61. - PubMed
Borghi 1984 {published data only}
    1. Borghi C, Pallavini G, Comi D, Grillo M, Lombardo M, Mantero O, et al. Comparison of three different methods of monitoring unwanted effects during antihypertensive therapy. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, Therapy and Toxicology 1984;22(6):324‐8. - PubMed
Brent 2009 {published data only}
    1. Brent DA, Emslie GJ, Clarke GN, Asarnow J, Spirito A, Ritz L, et al. Predictors of spontaneous and systematically assessed suicidal adverse events in the treatment of SSRI‐resistant depression in adolescents (TORDIA) study. American Journal of Psychiatry 2009;166(4):418‐26. - PMC - PubMed
Ciccolunghi 1975 {published data only}
    1. Ciccolunghi SN, Chaudri HA. A methodological study of some factors influencing the reporting of symptoms. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 1975;15(7):496‐505. - PubMed
De Vries 2013 {published data only}
    1. Vries ST, Mol PG, Zeeuw D, Haaijer‐Ruskamp FM, Denig P. Development and initial validation of a patient‐reported adverse drug event questionnaire. Drug Safety 2013;36(9):765‐77. - PubMed
De Vries 2014 {published data only}
    1. Vries ST, Haaijer‐Ruskamp FM, Zeeuw D, Denig P. The validity of a patient‐reported adverse drug event questionnaire using different recall periods. Quality of Life Research 2014;23(9):2439‐45. - PubMed
Downing 1970 {published data only}
    1. Downing RW, Rickels K, Meyers F. Side reactions in neurotics. I. A comparison of two methods of assessment. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and the Journal of New Drugs 1970;10(5):289‐97. - PubMed
Greenhill 2004 {published data only}
    1. Greenhill LL, Vitiello B, Fisher P, Levine J, Davies M, Abikoff H, et al. Comparison of increasingly detailed elicitation methods for the assessment of adverse events in pediatric psychopharmacology. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2004;43(12):1488‐96. - PubMed
Hermans 1994 {published data only}
    1. Hermans L, Deblander A, Keyser P, Scheys I, Lesaffre E, Westelinck KJ. At equipotent doses, isradipine is better tolerated than amlodipine in patients with mild‐to‐moderate hypertension: a double‐blind, randomized, parallel‐group study. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 1994;38(4):335‐40. - PMC - PubMed
Huskisson 1974 {published data only}
    1. Huskisson EC, Wojtulewski JA. Measurement of side effects of drugs. British Medical Journal 1974;2(5921):698‐9. - PMC - PubMed
Jacobson 1987 {published data only}
    1. Jacobson AF, Goldstein BJ, Dominguez RA, Steinbook RM. Interrater agreement and reliability measures of SAFTEE: general inquiry vs. systematic inquiry. Psychopharmacology Bulletin 1987;23(1):97‐101. - PubMed
Kruft 2007 {published data only}
    1. Kruft B, Nelson LA, Stewart JA, Stewart WC. Adverse event reporting. Ophthalmology 2007;114(7):1420. - PubMed
Landén 2005 {published data only}
    1. Landén M, Högberg P, Thase ME. Incidence of sexual side effects in refractory depression during treatment with citalopram or paroxetine. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 2005;66(1):100‐6. - PubMed
Lundberg 1980 {published data only}
    1. Lundberg PK. Assessment of drugs' side effects: Visual Analogue Scale versus check‐list format. Perceptual and Motor Skills 1980;50(3):1067‐73. - PubMed
Monteiro 1987 {published data only}
    1. Monteiro WO, Noshirvani HF, Marks IM, Lelliott PT. Anorgasmia from clomipramine in obsessive‐compulsive disorder. A controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry 1987;151:107‐12. - PubMed
Nicholls 1980 {published data only}
    1. Nicholls DP, Husaini MH, Bulpitt CJ, Stephens MD, Butler AG. Comparison of labetalol and propranolol in hypertension. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 1980;9(3):233‐7. - PMC - PubMed
O'Connell 2007 {published data only}
    1. O'Connell K, Davis AR, Kerns J. Oral contraceptives: side effects and depression in adolescent girls. Contraception 2007;75(4):299‐304. - PubMed
Os 1994 {published data only}
    1. Os I, Bratland B, Dahlöf B, Gisholt K, Syvertsen JO, Tretli S. Female preponderance for lisinopril‐induced cough in hypertension. American Journal of Hypertension 1994;7(11):1012‐5. - PubMed
Perez‐Lloret 2012 {published data only}
    1. Perez‐Lloret S, Rey MV, Fabre N, Ory F, Spampinato U, Montastruc JL, et al. Do Parkinson's disease patients disclose their adverse events spontaneously?. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2012;68(5):857‐65. - PubMed
Rabkin 1992 {published data only}
    1. Rabkin JG, Markowitz JS, Ocepek‐Welikson K, Wager SS. General versus systematic inquiry about emergent clinical events with SAFTEE: implications for clinical research. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology 1992;12(1):3‐10. - PubMed
Reilly 1992 {published data only}
    1. Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS. Assessing the responsiveness of a quality‐of‐life instrument and the measurement of symptom severity in essential hypertension. Pharmacoeconomics 1992;2(1):54‐66. - PubMed
Rosenthal 1996 {published data only}
    1. Rosenthal J, Bahrmann H, Benkert K, Baumgart P, Bönner G, Klein G, et al. Analysis of adverse effects among patients with essential hypertension receiving an ACE inhibitor or a beta‐blocker. Cardiology 1996;87(5):409‐14. - PubMed
Sheftell 2004 {published data only}
    1. Sheftell FD, Feleppa M, Tepper SJ, Rapoport AM, Ciannella L, Bigal M. Assessment of adverse events associated with triptans ‐ methods of assessment influence the results. Headache 2004;44(10):978‐82. - PubMed
Spilker 1987 {published data only}
    1. Spilker AV, Kessler JM. Comparison of symptoms elicited by checklist and fill‐in‐the‐blank questionnaires. Pharmacoepidemiology News 1987;22:272‐7.
Török 1984 {published data only}
    1. Török E, Kósa E, Szontagh M, Juvancz P, Eggenhofer J, Borvendég J. Comparison of methods to detect side‐effect on clinical application of chloranolol, a beta‐adrenergic receptor inhibitor. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 1984;26(5):555‐62. - PubMed
Wallander 1991 {published data only}
    1. Wallander MA, Dimenäs E, Svärdsudd K, Wiklund I. Evaluation of three methods of symptom reporting in a clinical trial of felodipine. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 1991;41(3):187‐96. - PubMed
Wallin 1981 {published data only}
    1. Wallin J, Sjövall J. Detection of adverse drug reactions in a clinical trial using two types of questioning. Clinical Therapeutics 1981;3(6):450‐2. - PubMed
Wernicke 2005 {published data only}
    1. Wernicke JF, Faries D, Milton D, Weyrauch K. Detecting treatment emergent adverse events in clinical trials: a comparison of spontaneously reported and solicited collection methods. Drug Safety 2005;28(11):1057‐63. - PubMed
Yeo 1991 {published data only}
    1. Yeo WW, Maclean D, Richardson PJ, Ramsay LE. Cough and enalapril: assessment by spontaneous reporting and visual analogue scale under double‐blind conditions. British Journal Clinical Pharmacology 1991;31(3):356‐9. - PMC - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Anderson 1994 {published data only}
    1. Anderson RB, Testa MA. Symptom distress checklists as a component of quality of life measurement: comparing prompted reports by patient and physician with concurrent adverse event reports via the physician. Drug Information Journal 1994;28:89‐114.
Aspinall 2002 {published data only}
    1. Aspinall MB, Whittle J, Aspinall SL, Maher RL, Good CG. Improving adverse‐drug‐reaction reporting in ambulatory care clinics at a Veterans Affairs hospital. American Journal of Health‐system Pharmacy 2002;59(9):841‐5. - PubMed
Atherton 2012 {published data only}
    1. Atherton PJ, Burger KN, Loprinzi CL, Neben Wittich MA, Miller RC, Jatoi A, et al. Using the Skindex‐16 and common terminology criteria for adverse events to assess rash symptoms: results of a pooled‐analysis (N0993). Supportive Care in Cancer 2012;20(8):1729‐35. - PMC - PubMed
Basch 2014 {published data only}
    1. Basch E, Reeve BB, Mitchell SA, Clauser SB, Minasian LM, Dueck AC, et al. Development of the National Cancer Institute's patient‐reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO‐CTCAE). Journal of National Cancer Institute 2014;106(9):244. [DOI: ] - PMC - PubMed
Bennett 2012 {published data only}
    1. Bennett BK, Park SB, Lin CSY, Friedlander ML, Kiernan MC, Goldstein D. Impact of oxaliplatin‐induced neuropathy: a patient perspective. Supportive Care in Cancer 2012;20(11):2959‐67. - PubMed
Bergh 2013 {published data only}
    1. Bergh JP, Bouts ME, Veer E, Velde RY, Janssen MJ, Geusens PP, et al. Comparing tolerability and efficacy of generic versus brand alendronate: a randomized clinical study in postmenopausal women with a recent fracture. PLOS One 2013;8(10):e78153. - PMC - PubMed
Bonierbale 2003 {published data only}
    1. Bonierbale M, Lançon C, Tignol J. The ELIXIR study: evaluation of sexual dysfunction in 4557 depressed patients in France. Current Medical Research and Opinion 2003;19(2):114‐24. - PubMed
Brown 2005 {published data only}
    1. Brown ES1, Jeffress J, Liggin JD, Garza M, Beard L. Switching outpatients with bipolar or schizoaffective disorders and substance abuse from their current antipsychotic to aripiprazole. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 2005;66(6):756‐60. - PubMed
Byerly 2006 {published data only}
    1. Byerly MJ, Nakonezny PA, Fisher R, Magouirk B, Rush AJ. An empirical evaluation of the Arizona sexual experience scale and a simple one‐item screening test for assessing antipsychotic‐related sexual dysfunction in outpatients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. Schizophrenia Research 2006;81(2‐3):311‐6. - PubMed
Carreno 2008 {published data only}
    1. Carreño M, Gil‐Nagel A, Sánchez JC, Elices E, Serratosa JM, Salas‐Puig J, et al. Strategies to detect adverse effects of antiepileptic drugs in clinical practice. Epilepsy & Behavior 2008;13(1):178‐83. - PubMed
Coolbrandt 2011 {published data only}
    1. Coolbrandt, Heede K, Vanhove E, Bom A, Milisen K, Wildiers H. Immediate versus delayed self‐reporting of symptoms and side effects during chemotherapy: does timing matter?. European Journal of Oncology Nursing 2011;15(2):130‐6. - PubMed
Costa 1979 {published data only}
    1. Costa FV, Ambrosioni E, Magnani B. Side effects of antihypertensive drugs. Incidence and methods of collection. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Biopharmacy 1979;17(9):405‐9. - PubMed
De Smedt 2011 {published data only}
    1. Smedt RH, Denig P, Meer K, Haaijer‐Ruskamp FM, Jaarsma T. Self‐reported adverse drug events and the role of illness perception and medication beliefs in ambulatory heart failure patients: a cross‐sectional survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies 2011;48(12):1540‐50. - PubMed
Downie 2006 {published data only}
    1. Downie FP, Mar Fan HG, Houédé‐Tchen N, Yi Q, Tannock IF. Cognitive function, fatigue, and menopausal symptoms in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy: evaluation with patient interview after formal assessment. Psychooncology 2006;15(10):921‐30. - PubMed
Edwards 1996 {published data only}
    1. Edwards JG, Dinan TG, Waller DG, Greentree SG. Double‐blind comparative study of the antidepressant, unwanted and cardiac effects of minaprine and amitriptyline. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 1996;42(4):491‐8. - PMC - PubMed
Emslie 2006 {published data only}
    1. Emslie G, Kratochvil C, Vitiello B, Silva S, Mayes T, McNulty S, et al. Treatment for adolescents with depression study (TADS): safety results. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2006;45(12):1440‐55. - PMC - PubMed
Fisher 1990 {published data only}
    1. Fisher S, Bryant SG. Postmarketing surveillance: accuracy of patient drug attribution judgments. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 1990;48(1):102‐7. - PubMed
Gelenberg 2013 {published data only}
    1. Gelenberg AJ, Dunner DL, Rothschild AJ, Pedersen R, Dorries KM, Ninan PT. Sexual functioning in patients with recurrent major depressive disorder enrolled in the PREVENT study. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 2013;201(4):266‐73. - PubMed
Glaser 1954 {published data only}
    1. Glaser EM, Whittow GC. Experimental errors in clinical trials. Clinical Science 1954;13(2):199‐210. - PubMed
Greenblatt 1964 {published data only}
    1. Greenblatt M. Controls in clinical research. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 1964;5(6):864‐70.
Hakobyan 2011 {published data only}
    1. Hakobyan L, Haaijer‐Ruskamp FM, Zeeuw D, Dobre D, Denig P. A review of methods used in assessing non‐serious adverse drug events in observational studies among type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2011;9:83. - PMC - PubMed
Hanesse 1994 {published data only}
    1. Hanesse B, Legras B, Royer RJ, Guillemin F, Briancon S. Adverse drug reactions: comparison of two report methods. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 1994;3:223‐9.
Homsi 2006 {published data only}
    1. Homsi J, Walsh D, Rivera N, Rybicki LA, Nelson KA, Legrand SB, et al. Symptom evaluation in palliative medicine: patient report vs systematic assessment. Supportive Care in Cancer 2006;14(5):444‐53. - PubMed
Iverson 2011 {published data only}
    1. Iversen P, Karup C, Meulen E, Tankó LB, Huhtaniemi I. Hot flushes in prostatic cancer patients during androgen‐deprivation therapy with monthly dose of degarelix or leuprolide. Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases 2011;14(2):184‐90. - PubMed
Jarernsiripornkul 2009 {published data only}
    1. Jarernsiripornkul N, Kakaew W, Loalukkana W, Krska J. Adverse drug reaction monitoring: comparing doctor and patient reporting for new drugs. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 2009;18(3):240‐5. - PubMed
Jonsson 2011 {published data only}
    1. Jonsson T, Christrup LL, Højsted J, Villesen HH, Albjerg TH, Ravn‐Nielsen LV, et al. Symptoms and side effects in chronic non‐cancer pain: patient report vs. systematic assessment. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 2011;55(1):69‐74. - PubMed
Lambert 2003 {published data only}
    1. Lambert TJ, Cock N, Alcock SJ, Kelly DL, Conley RR. Measurement of antipsychotic‐induced side effects: support for the validity of a self‐report (LUNSERS) versus structured interview (UKU) approach to measurement. Human Psychopharmacology 2003;18(5):405‐11. - PubMed
Love 1989 {published data only}
    1. Love RR, Leventhal H, Easterling DV, Nerenz DR. Side effects and emotional distress during cancer chemotherapy. Cancer 1989;63(3):604‐12. - PubMed
Makaranada 1995 {published data only}
    1. Makarananda K, Sriwatanakul K, Pothisiri P, Eamrungroj S, Charoonroj P, Pongprayoon U. Prospective study of adverse drug reactions of antihypertensive drugs in Thai outpatients. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand 1985;68(5):229‐36. - PubMed
Martys 1982 {published data only}
    1. Martys CR. Monitoring adverse reactions to antibiotics in general practice.. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 1982;36(3):224‐7. - PMC - PubMed
Mei 2006 {published data only}
    1. Mei PA, Montenegro MA, Guerreiro MM, Guerreiro CA. Pharmacovigilance in epileptic patients using antiepileptic drugs. Arquivos de Neuro‐psiquiatria 2006;64(2A):198‐201. - PubMed
Möller 2000 {published data only}
    1. Möller HJ, Glaser K, Leverkus F, Göbel C. Double‐blind, multicenter comparative study of sertraline versus amitriptyline in outpatients with major depression. Pharmacopsychiatry 2000;33(6):206‐12. - PubMed
Olsen 1999 {published data only}
    1. 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 Pressure 1999;8(2):94‐101. - PubMed
Pandina 2007 {published data only}
    1. Pandina GJ, Bossie CA, Zhu Y, Gharabawi GM. Evaluating movement disorders in pediatric patients receiving risperidone: a comparison of spontaneous reports and research criteria for TD. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health 2007;1(1):3. [DOI: ] - PMC - PubMed
Rynn 2015 {published data only}
    1. Rynn MA, Walkup JT, Compton SN, Sakolsky DJ, Sherrill JT, Shen S, et al. Child/adolescent anxiety multimodal study: evaluating safety. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2015;54(3):180‐90. - PMC - PubMed
Sheikh 2013 {published data only}
    1. Sheikh SI, Nestorov I, Russell H, O'Gorman J, Huang R, Milne GL, et al. Tolerability and pharmacokinetics of delayed‐release dimethyl fumarate administered with and without aspirin in healthy volunteers. Clinical Therapeutics 2013;35(10):1582‐94. - PubMed
Thomsen 1997 {published data only}
    1. Thomsen HS. Frequency of acute adverse events to a non‐ionic low‐osmolar contrast medium: the effect of verbal interview. Pharmacology & Toxicology 1997;80(2):108‐10. - PubMed
Tran 1997 {published data only}
    1. Tran PV, Dellva MA, Tollefson GD, Beasley CM Jr, Potvin JH, Kiesler GM. Extrapyramidal symptoms and tolerability of olanzapine versus haloperidol in the acute treatment of schizophrenia. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 1997;58(5):205‐11. - PubMed
Trindade 1998 {published data only}
    1. Trindade E, Menon D, Topfer LA, Coloma C. Adverse effects associated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants: a meta‐analysis. CMAJ 1998;159(10):1245‐52. - PMC - PubMed
Van Haecht 1990 {published data only}
    1. Haecht CH, Vander Stichele R, Bogaert MG. Package inserts for antihypertensive drugs: use by the patients and impact on adverse drug reactions. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 1990;39(6):551‐4. - PubMed
Waddell 2008 {published data only}
    1. Waddell L, Taylor M. A new self‐rating scale for detecting atypical or second‐generation antipsychotic side effects.. Journal of Psychopharmacology 2008;22(3):238‐43. - PubMed
Yusufi 2007 {published data only}
    1. Yusufi B, Mukherjee S, Flanagan R, Paton C, Dunn G, Page E, et al. Prevalence and nature of side effects during clozapine maintenance treatment and the relationship with clozapine dose and plasma concentration. International Clinical Psychopharmacology 2007;22(4):238‐43. - PubMed

References to studies awaiting assessment

AMIS 1980 {published data only}
    1. Aspirin Myocardial Infarction Study research group. A randomized, controlled trial of aspirin in persons recovered from myocardial infarction. JAMA 1980;243:661‐9. - PubMed
Mothapo 2015 {published data only}
    1. Mothapo KM, Schellekens A, Crevel R, Keuter M, Grintjes‐Huisman K, Koopmans P, et al. Improvement of depression and anxiety after discontinuation of long‐term Efavirenz treatment. CNS & Neurological Disorders Drug Targets 2015;14(6):811‐8. [PUBMED: 25808896] - PubMed

Additional references

Allen 2011
    1. Allen EN, Barnes KI, Mushi AM, Massawe I, Staedke SG, Mehta U, et al. Eliciting harms data from trial participants: how perceptions of illness and treatment mediate recognition of relevant information to report. Trials 2011;12(Suppl 1):A10.
Allen 2013
    1. Allen EN, Mushi AK, Massawe IS, Vestergaard LS, Lemnge M, Staedke SG, et al. How experiences become data: the process of eliciting adverse event, medical history and concomitant medication reports in antimalarial and antiretroviral interaction trials. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2013;13:140. - PMC - PubMed
Anon 2012
    1. Anon. Education section – Studies within a review (SWAR). Journal of Evidence‐based Medicine 2012;5:188‐9. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-5391.2012.01193.x] - DOI - PubMed
CIOMS 2005
    1. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. Management of Safety Information from Clinical Trials. Report of CIOMS Working Group VI. Geneva: CIOMS, 2005.
Cochrane 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Vol. 5.1.0, Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
Edgerly 2008
    1. Edgerly M, Fojo T. Is there room for improvement in adverse event reporting in the era of targeted therapies?. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2008;100(4):240‐2. - PubMed
FDA 2005
    1. US Food, Drug Administration. Reviewer guidance: Conducting a clinical safety review of a new product application and preparing a report on the review. www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation /Guidances/ucm072974.pdf (accessed prior to 14 September 2017).
FDA 2009
    1. US Food, Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: patient‐reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims.. www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guid... (accessed prior to 14 September 2017). - PMC - PubMed
FDA 2012
    1. US Food, Drug Administration. Draft guidance for Industry: determining the extent of safety data collection needed in late stage premarket and postapproval clinical investigations. www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guid... (accessed prior to 14 September 2017).
Golder 2011
    1. Golder S, Loke YK, Bland M. Meta‐analyses of adverse effects data derived from randomised controlled trials as compared to observational studies: methodological overview. PLOS Medicine 2011;8(5):e1001026. [PUBMED: 21559325] - PMC - PubMed
Heaven 2006
    1. Heaven B, Murtach M, Rapley T, May C, Graham R, Kaner E, et al. Patients or research subjects? A qualitative study of participation in a randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention. Patient Education and Counseling 2006;62:260‐70. - PubMed
Higgins 2002
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2002;21:1539‐58. - PubMed
Horsley 2011
    1. Horsley T, Dingwall O, Sampson M. Checking reference lists to find additional studies for systematic reviews. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 8. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000026.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Huang 2011
    1. Huang HY, Andrews E, Jones J, Skoven ML, Tilson H. Pitfalls in meta‐analyses on adverse events reported form clinical trials. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 2011;20(10):1014‐20. - PubMed
ICH 1996
    1. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). Guideline for Good Clinical Practice (Topic E6/R1). www.ich.org/products/guidelines/efficacy/article/efficacy‐guidelines.html. (accessed prior to 14 September 2017).
ICH 2004
    1. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). Pharmacovigilance planning: notice for guidance on planning pharmacovigilance activities (Topic E2E). www.ich.org/products/guidelines/efficacy/article/efficacy‐guidelines.html. (accessed prior to 14 September 2017).
Ioannidis 2004
    1. Ioannidis JP, Evans SJ, Gøtzsche PC, O'Neill RT, Altman DG, Schulz K, et al. CONSORT Group. Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Annals of Internal Medicine 2004;141(10):781‐8. - PubMed
Paterson 2008
    1. Paterson C, Zheng Z, Xue C, Wang Y. "Playing their parts": the experiences of participants in a randomized sham‐controlled acupuncture trial. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 2008;14(2):199‐208. - PubMed
Popay 2006
    1. Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. Results of an ESRC funded research project (as supplied prior to 14 September 2017). Data on file 2006.
Scherer 2007
    1. Scherer RW, Langenberg P, Elm E. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000005.pub3] - DOI - PubMed
Scott 2011
    1. Scott C, Walker J, White P, Lewith G. Forging convictions: the effects of active participation in a clinical trial. Social Science and Medicine 2011;72(12):2041‐8. - PubMed
Sterne 2001
    1. Sterne JAC, Egger M. Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta‐analysis: guidelines on choice of axis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2001;54(10):1046‐55. - PubMed
Tourangeau 1984
    1. Tourangeau R. Cognitive sciences and survey methods. In: Jabine T, Straf M, Tanur J, Tourangeau R editor(s). Cognitive aspects of survey methodology: building a bridge between disciplines. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 1984.
West 2005
    1. West SL, Strom BL, Poll C. Validity of pharmacoepidemiologic drug and diagnosis data. In: Strom BL editor(s). Pharmacoepidemiology. 4. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons, 2005:709‐65.
Young 2011
    1. Young T, Hopewell S. Methods for obtaining unpublished data. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 11. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000027.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Allen 2013b
    1. Allen EN, Chandler CIR, Mandimika N, Barnes K. Eliciting adverse effects data from participants in clinical trials. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 5. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000039] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types