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
. 2022 Mar:143:224-241.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.10.025. Epub 2021 Nov 3.

Harms in Systematic Reviews Paper 3: Given the same data sources, systematic reviews of gabapentin have different results for harms

Riaz Qureshi  1 , Evan Mayo-Wilson  2 , Thanitsara Rittiphairoj  3 , Mara McAdams-DeMarco  4 , Eliseo Guallar  1 , Tianjing Li  5
Affiliations

Harms in Systematic Reviews Paper 3: Given the same data sources, systematic reviews of gabapentin have different results for harms

Riaz Qureshi et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Mar.

Abstract

Objective: In this methodologic study (Part 2 of 2), we examined the overlap in sources of evidence and the corresponding results for harms in systematic reviews for gabapentin.

Study design & setting: We extracted all citations referenced as sources of evidence for harms of gabapentin from 70 systematic reviews, as well as the harms assessed and numerical results. We assessed consistency of harms between pairs of reviews with a high degree of overlap in sources of evidence (>50%) as determined by corrected covered area (CCA).

Results: We found 514 reports cited across 70 included reviews. Most reports (244/514, 48%) were not cited in more than one review. Among 18 pairs of reviews, we found reviews had differences in which harms were assessed and their choice to meta-analyze estimates or present descriptive summaries. When a specific harm was meta-analyzed in a pair of reviews, we found similar effect estimates.

Conclusion: Differences in harms results across reviews can occur because the choice of harms is driven by reviewer preferences, rather than standardized approaches to selecting harms for assessment. A paradigm shift is needed in the current approach to synthesizing harms.

Keywords: Clinical Trials; Harms; Meta-analysis; Synthesis; Systematic Reviews.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Number of appearances in reviews for unique harms.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Peryer G, Golder S, Junqueira D, Vohra S, Kong Loke Y, et al. Chapter 19: Adverse effects Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 6. Cochrane. Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al., editors; 2019. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/version-6/chapter-19-draftv2.
    1. Zorzela L, Golder S, Liu Y, et al. Quality of reporting in systematic reviews of adverse events: Systematic review. Br Med J 2014;348:f7668. doi:10.1136/bmj.f7668. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mayo-Wilson E, Fusco N, Li T, Hong H, Canner JK, Dickersin K. Harms are assessed inconsistently and reported inadequately Part 1: Systematic adverse events. J Clin Epidemiol 2019;113:20–7. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.022. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mayo-Wilson E, Fusco N, Li T, Hong H, Canner JK, Dickersin K. Harms are assessed inconsistently and reported inadequately Part 2: Non-systematic adverse events. J Clin Epidemiol 2019;113:11–19. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.020. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mayo-Wilson E, Fusco N, Hong H, Li T, Canner JK, Dickersin K. Opportunities for selective reporting of harms in randomized clinical trials: Selection criteria for non-systematic adverse events. Trials 2019;20(1):553. doi:10.1186/s13063-019-3581-3. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types