Challenges in systematic reviews that assess treatment harms

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

110 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

An evidence synthesis of a medical intervention should assess the balance of benefits and harms. Investigators performing systematic reviews of harms face challenges in finding data, rating the quality of harms reporting, and synthesizing and displaying data from different sources. Systematic reviews of harms often rely primarily on published clinical trials. Identifying important harms of treatment and quantifying the risk associated with them, however, often require a broader range of data sources, including unpublished trials, observational studies, and unpublished information on published trials submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Each source of data has some potential for yielding important information. Criteria for judging the quality of harms assessment and reporting are still in their early stages of development. Investigators conducting systematic reviews of harms should consider empirically validating the criteria they use to judge the validity of studies reporting harms. Synthesizing harms data from different sources requires careful consideration of internal validity, applicability, and sources of heterogeneity. This article highlights examples of approaches to methodologic issues associated with performing systematic reviews of harms from 96 Evidence-based Practice Center evidence reports.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1090-1099
Number of pages10
JournalAnnals of Internal Medicine
Volume142
Issue number12 II
StatePublished - Jun 21 2005

Fingerprint

Information Storage and Retrieval
Research Personnel
Evidence-Based Practice
United States Food and Drug Administration
Observational Studies
Clinical Trials

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Challenges in systematic reviews that assess treatment harms. / Chou, Roger; Helfand, Mark.

In: Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 142, No. 12 II, 21.06.2005, p. 1090-1099.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{fe76ece2e85d4d949999f63b00d3fd73,
title = "Challenges in systematic reviews that assess treatment harms",
abstract = "An evidence synthesis of a medical intervention should assess the balance of benefits and harms. Investigators performing systematic reviews of harms face challenges in finding data, rating the quality of harms reporting, and synthesizing and displaying data from different sources. Systematic reviews of harms often rely primarily on published clinical trials. Identifying important harms of treatment and quantifying the risk associated with them, however, often require a broader range of data sources, including unpublished trials, observational studies, and unpublished information on published trials submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Each source of data has some potential for yielding important information. Criteria for judging the quality of harms assessment and reporting are still in their early stages of development. Investigators conducting systematic reviews of harms should consider empirically validating the criteria they use to judge the validity of studies reporting harms. Synthesizing harms data from different sources requires careful consideration of internal validity, applicability, and sources of heterogeneity. This article highlights examples of approaches to methodologic issues associated with performing systematic reviews of harms from 96 Evidence-based Practice Center evidence reports.",
author = "Roger Chou and Mark Helfand",
year = "2005",
month = "6",
day = "21",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "142",
pages = "1090--1099",
journal = "Annals of Internal Medicine",
issn = "0003-4819",
publisher = "American College of Physicians",
number = "12 II",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Challenges in systematic reviews that assess treatment harms

AU - Chou, Roger

AU - Helfand, Mark

PY - 2005/6/21

Y1 - 2005/6/21

N2 - An evidence synthesis of a medical intervention should assess the balance of benefits and harms. Investigators performing systematic reviews of harms face challenges in finding data, rating the quality of harms reporting, and synthesizing and displaying data from different sources. Systematic reviews of harms often rely primarily on published clinical trials. Identifying important harms of treatment and quantifying the risk associated with them, however, often require a broader range of data sources, including unpublished trials, observational studies, and unpublished information on published trials submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Each source of data has some potential for yielding important information. Criteria for judging the quality of harms assessment and reporting are still in their early stages of development. Investigators conducting systematic reviews of harms should consider empirically validating the criteria they use to judge the validity of studies reporting harms. Synthesizing harms data from different sources requires careful consideration of internal validity, applicability, and sources of heterogeneity. This article highlights examples of approaches to methodologic issues associated with performing systematic reviews of harms from 96 Evidence-based Practice Center evidence reports.

AB - An evidence synthesis of a medical intervention should assess the balance of benefits and harms. Investigators performing systematic reviews of harms face challenges in finding data, rating the quality of harms reporting, and synthesizing and displaying data from different sources. Systematic reviews of harms often rely primarily on published clinical trials. Identifying important harms of treatment and quantifying the risk associated with them, however, often require a broader range of data sources, including unpublished trials, observational studies, and unpublished information on published trials submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Each source of data has some potential for yielding important information. Criteria for judging the quality of harms assessment and reporting are still in their early stages of development. Investigators conducting systematic reviews of harms should consider empirically validating the criteria they use to judge the validity of studies reporting harms. Synthesizing harms data from different sources requires careful consideration of internal validity, applicability, and sources of heterogeneity. This article highlights examples of approaches to methodologic issues associated with performing systematic reviews of harms from 96 Evidence-based Practice Center evidence reports.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=20544439606&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=20544439606&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 142

SP - 1090

EP - 1099

JO - Annals of Internal Medicine

JF - Annals of Internal Medicine

SN - 0003-4819

IS - 12 II

ER -