Panagiotis N Papanikolaou1, John P A Ioannidis. 1. Clinical Trials and Evidence-Based Medicine, Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess how frequently systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials convey large-scale evidence on specific, well-defined adverse events. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for reviews containing quantitative data on specific, well-defined harms for at least 4000 randomized subjects, the minimum sample required for adequate power to detect an adverse event due to an intervention in 1% of subjects. Main outcome measures included the number of reviews with eligible large-scale data on adverse events, the number of ineligible reviews, and the magnitude of recorded harms (absolute risk, relative risk) based on large-scale evidence. RESULTS: Of 1727 reviews, 138 included evidence on > or =4000 subjects. Only 25 (18%) had eligible data on adverse events, while 77 had no harms data, and 36 had data on harms that were nonspecific or pertained to <4000 subjects. Of 66 specific adverse events for which there were adequate data in the 25 eligible reviews, 25 showed statistically significant differences between comparison arms; most pertained to serious or severe adverse events and absolute risk differences <4%. In 29% (9/31) of a sample of large trials in reviews with poor reporting of harms, specific harms were presented adequately in the trial reports but were not included in the systematic reviews. CONCLUSION: Systematic reviews can convey useful large-scale information on adverse events. Acknowledging the importance and difficulties of studying harms, reporting of adverse effects must be improved in both randomized trials and systematic reviews.
PURPOSE: To assess how frequently systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials convey large-scale evidence on specific, well-defined adverse events. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for reviews containing quantitative data on specific, well-defined harms for at least 4000 randomized subjects, the minimum sample required for adequate power to detect an adverse event due to an intervention in 1% of subjects. Main outcome measures included the number of reviews with eligible large-scale data on adverse events, the number of ineligible reviews, and the magnitude of recorded harms (absolute risk, relative risk) based on large-scale evidence. RESULTS: Of 1727 reviews, 138 included evidence on > or =4000 subjects. Only 25 (18%) had eligible data on adverse events, while 77 had no harms data, and 36 had data on harms that were nonspecific or pertained to <4000 subjects. Of 66 specific adverse events for which there were adequate data in the 25 eligible reviews, 25 showed statistically significant differences between comparison arms; most pertained to serious or severe adverse events and absolute risk differences <4%. In 29% (9/31) of a sample of large trials in reviews with poor reporting of harms, specific harms were presented adequately in the trial reports but were not included in the systematic reviews. CONCLUSION: Systematic reviews can convey useful large-scale information on adverse events. Acknowledging the importance and difficulties of studying harms, reporting of adverse effects must be improved in both randomized trials and systematic reviews.
Authors: Søren M Bentzen; Louis S Constine; Joseph O Deasy; Avi Eisbruch; Andrew Jackson; Lawrence B Marks; Randall K Ten Haken; Ellen D Yorke Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Daniel K Benjamin; Philip Brian Smith; M Dianne Murphy; Rosemary Roberts; Lisa Mathis; Debbie Avant; Robert M Califf; Jennifer S Li Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-09-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-07-21
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2009-07-21 Impact factor: 11.069