Poor reporting and inadequate searches were apparent in systematic reviews of adverse effects
- PMID: 18394536
- DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.06.005
Poor reporting and inadequate searches were apparent in systematic reviews of adverse effects
Abstract
Objective: Systematic reviews incorporating adverse effects are assuming increasing importance as questions raised extend beyond clinical effectiveness to all effects (beneficial and harmful). The aim of this study was to survey the methods used to identify relevant studies for systematic reviews of adverse effects.
Study design and setting: All records within the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were scanned for systematic reviews in which the primary outcomes were adverse effects. Two information professionals independently assessed the methods used to identify relevant research as reported in the 277 reviews that met the inclusion criteria.
Results: A major weakness of the reviews was inadequate reporting of the search strategies used. In addition, of the reviews that did report a search strategy, few used the sensitive search strategies recommended for systematic reviews. The majority of reviews did not search more than one or two databases, and few other methods of identifying information were used.
Conclusion: This investigation shows the variation in the searching element of systematic reviews of adverse effects and demonstrates that the reporting of the methods used to identify research in such reviews could be vastly improved.
Similar articles
-
Methodological developments in searching for studies for systematic reviews: past, present and future?Syst Rev. 2013 Sep 25;2:78. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-2-78. Syst Rev. 2013. PMID: 24066664 Free PMC article.
-
Identifying systematic reviews of the adverse effects of health care interventions.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006 May 8;6:22. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-22. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006. PMID: 16681854 Free PMC article.
-
Comparison of search strategies in systematic reviews of adverse effects to other systematic reviews.Health Info Libr J. 2014 Jun;31(2):92-105. doi: 10.1111/hir.12041. Epub 2014 Apr 23. Health Info Libr J. 2014. PMID: 24754741
-
Search strategies to identify information on adverse effects: a systematic review.J Med Libr Assoc. 2009 Apr;97(2):84-92. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.97.2.004. J Med Libr Assoc. 2009. PMID: 19404498 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study.Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 6;6(1):245. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y. Syst Rev. 2017. PMID: 29208034 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Improving peer review of systematic reviews by involving librarians and information specialists: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Trials. 2021 Nov 11;22(1):791. doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05738-z. Trials. 2021. PMID: 34763714 Free PMC article.
-
Methodological developments in searching for studies for systematic reviews: past, present and future?Syst Rev. 2013 Sep 25;2:78. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-2-78. Syst Rev. 2013. PMID: 24066664 Free PMC article.
-
Analysis of the reporting of search strategies in Cochrane systematic reviews.J Med Libr Assoc. 2009 Jan;97(1):21-9. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.97.1.004. J Med Libr Assoc. 2009. PMID: 19158999 Free PMC article.
-
Effect of librarian collaboration on otolaryngology systematic review and meta-analysis quality.J Med Libr Assoc. 2024 Jul 1;112(3):261-274. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2024.1774. Epub 2024 Jul 29. J Med Libr Assoc. 2024. PMID: 39308914 Free PMC article.
-
Benchmarking veterinary librarians' participation in systematic reviews and scoping reviews.J Med Libr Assoc. 2019 Oct;107(4):499-507. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2019.710. Epub 2019 Oct 1. J Med Libr Assoc. 2019. PMID: 31607807 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous
