Marian S McDonagh1, Kim Peterson, Howard Balshem, Mark Helfand. 1. Department of Medical Informatics & Clinical Epidemiology, and Oregon Evidence-Based Practice Center, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. mcdonagh@ohsu.edu
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 The Drug Effectiveness Review Project (DERP) SRs search US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) documents to identify unpublished evidence.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 We categorized evidence as (1) unique unpublished studies, (2) supplemental unpublished data, or (3) FDA postmarketing data analysis.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 RESULTS: Among 114 DERP reports, 19% included unpublished studies and/or supplemental data and 10% included postmarketing analyses. From 175 preapproval documents, 14% provided eligible unpublished studies and 4.0% supplemental unpublished data that helped confirm previous findings, identify important harms, and fill gaps in knowledge about understudied subpopulations, outcomes, and comparisons.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 CONCLUSIONS: The FDA documents can provide important unpublished evidence for SRs, although in a small proportion of cases.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.
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 The Drug Effectiveness Review Project (DERP) SRs search US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) documents to identify unpublished evidence.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 We categorized evidence as (1) unique unpublished studies, (2) supplemental unpublished data, or (3) FDA postmarketing data analysis.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.
Authors: Richard T Scheife; Lisa E Hines; Richard D Boyce; Sophie P Chung; Jeremiah D Momper; Christine D Sommer; Darrell R Abernethy; John R Horn; Stephen J Sklar; Samantha K Wong; Gretchen Jones; Mary L Brown; Amy J Grizzle; Susan Comes; Tricia Lee Wilkins; Clarissa Borst; Michael A Wittie; Daniel C Malone Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Ahmed M Abou-Setta; Maya Jeyaraman; Abdelhamid Attia; Hesham G Al-Inany; Mauricio Ferri; Mohammed T Ansari; Chantelle M Garritty; Kenneth Bond; Susan L Norris Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-12-08 Impact factor: 3.240