US Food and Drug Administration documents can provide unpublished evidence relevant to systematic reviews

Marian McDonagh, Kim Peterson, Howard Balshem, Mark Helfand

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives A key systematic review (SR) methodology is comprehensive searching. The Drug Effectiveness Review Project (DERP) SRs search US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) documents to identify unpublished evidence. This study evaluates the success of those efforts. Study Design and Setting We examined DERP reports published since 2003 for the use of FDA preapproval and postmarketing documents. We categorized evidence as (1) unique unpublished studies, (2) supplemental unpublished data, or (3) FDA postmarketing data analysis. Three reviewers independently assigned predetermined impact categories (e.g., qualitative or quantitative usage, fills gaps, confirms findings, and alters conclusions), resolving disagreements through consensus. Results Among 114 DERP reports, 19% included unpublished studies and/or supplemental data and 10% included postmarketing analyses. From 175 preapproval documents, 14% provided eligible unpublished studies and 4.0% supplemental unpublished data that helped confirm previous findings, identify important harms, and fill gaps in knowledge about understudied subpopulations, outcomes, and comparisons. Report conclusion statements changed in 9 of 33 instances of premarketing documents compared with 4 of 12 postmarketing analyses. Conclusions The FDA documents can provide important unpublished evidence for SRs, although in a small proportion of cases. Future research should identify attributes that predict which reviews may benefit most from review of FDA documents.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1071-1081
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume66
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2013

Fingerprint

United States Food and Drug Administration
Pharmaceutical Preparations

Keywords

  • Drug therapy
  • Food and Drug Administration
  • Publication bias
  • Reporting bias
  • Systematic reviews
  • Unpublished evidence

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

US Food and Drug Administration documents can provide unpublished evidence relevant to systematic reviews. / McDonagh, Marian; Peterson, Kim; Balshem, Howard; Helfand, Mark.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 66, No. 10, 10.2013, p. 1071-1081.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{eeff456b932b47dabd637fb0a3f632d3,
title = "US Food and Drug Administration documents can provide unpublished evidence relevant to systematic reviews",
abstract = "Objectives A key systematic review (SR) methodology is comprehensive searching. The Drug Effectiveness Review Project (DERP) SRs search US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) documents to identify unpublished evidence. This study evaluates the success of those efforts. Study Design and Setting We examined DERP reports published since 2003 for the use of FDA preapproval and postmarketing documents. We categorized evidence as (1) unique unpublished studies, (2) supplemental unpublished data, or (3) FDA postmarketing data analysis. Three reviewers independently assigned predetermined impact categories (e.g., qualitative or quantitative usage, fills gaps, confirms findings, and alters conclusions), resolving disagreements through consensus. Results Among 114 DERP reports, 19{\%} included unpublished studies and/or supplemental data and 10{\%} included postmarketing analyses. From 175 preapproval documents, 14{\%} provided eligible unpublished studies and 4.0{\%} supplemental unpublished data that helped confirm previous findings, identify important harms, and fill gaps in knowledge about understudied subpopulations, outcomes, and comparisons. Report conclusion statements changed in 9 of 33 instances of premarketing documents compared with 4 of 12 postmarketing analyses. Conclusions The FDA documents can provide important unpublished evidence for SRs, although in a small proportion of cases. Future research should identify attributes that predict which reviews may benefit most from review of FDA documents.",
keywords = "Drug therapy, Food and Drug Administration, Publication bias, Reporting bias, Systematic reviews, Unpublished evidence",
author = "Marian McDonagh and Kim Peterson and Howard Balshem and Mark Helfand",
year = "2013",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.05.006",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "66",
pages = "1071--1081",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - US Food and Drug Administration documents can provide unpublished evidence relevant to systematic reviews

AU - McDonagh, Marian

AU - Peterson, Kim

AU - Balshem, Howard

AU - Helfand, Mark

PY - 2013/10

Y1 - 2013/10

N2 - Objectives A key systematic review (SR) methodology is comprehensive searching. The Drug Effectiveness Review Project (DERP) SRs search US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) documents to identify unpublished evidence. This study evaluates the success of those efforts. Study Design and Setting We examined DERP reports published since 2003 for the use of FDA preapproval and postmarketing documents. We categorized evidence as (1) unique unpublished studies, (2) supplemental unpublished data, or (3) FDA postmarketing data analysis. Three reviewers independently assigned predetermined impact categories (e.g., qualitative or quantitative usage, fills gaps, confirms findings, and alters conclusions), resolving disagreements through consensus. Results Among 114 DERP reports, 19% included unpublished studies and/or supplemental data and 10% included postmarketing analyses. From 175 preapproval documents, 14% provided eligible unpublished studies and 4.0% supplemental unpublished data that helped confirm previous findings, identify important harms, and fill gaps in knowledge about understudied subpopulations, outcomes, and comparisons. Report conclusion statements changed in 9 of 33 instances of premarketing documents compared with 4 of 12 postmarketing analyses. Conclusions The FDA documents can provide important unpublished evidence for SRs, although in a small proportion of cases. Future research should identify attributes that predict which reviews may benefit most from review of FDA documents.

AB - Objectives A key systematic review (SR) methodology is comprehensive searching. The Drug Effectiveness Review Project (DERP) SRs search US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) documents to identify unpublished evidence. This study evaluates the success of those efforts. Study Design and Setting We examined DERP reports published since 2003 for the use of FDA preapproval and postmarketing documents. We categorized evidence as (1) unique unpublished studies, (2) supplemental unpublished data, or (3) FDA postmarketing data analysis. Three reviewers independently assigned predetermined impact categories (e.g., qualitative or quantitative usage, fills gaps, confirms findings, and alters conclusions), resolving disagreements through consensus. Results Among 114 DERP reports, 19% included unpublished studies and/or supplemental data and 10% included postmarketing analyses. From 175 preapproval documents, 14% provided eligible unpublished studies and 4.0% supplemental unpublished data that helped confirm previous findings, identify important harms, and fill gaps in knowledge about understudied subpopulations, outcomes, and comparisons. Report conclusion statements changed in 9 of 33 instances of premarketing documents compared with 4 of 12 postmarketing analyses. Conclusions The FDA documents can provide important unpublished evidence for SRs, although in a small proportion of cases. Future research should identify attributes that predict which reviews may benefit most from review of FDA documents.

KW - Drug therapy

KW - Food and Drug Administration

KW - Publication bias

KW - Reporting bias

KW - Systematic reviews

KW - Unpublished evidence

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84883454261&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84883454261&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.05.006

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.05.006

M3 - Article

C2 - 23856190

AN - SCOPUS:84883454261

VL - 66

SP - 1071

EP - 1081

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

IS - 10

ER -