Ana Penedones1,2, Francisco Batel Marques1,3. 1. Pharmacovigilance Unit of Coimbra (UFC), Centre for Health Technology Assessment and Drug Research (CHAD), AIBILI, Coimbra, Portugal. 2. School of Pharmacy, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal. 3. Laboratory of Social Pharmacy and Public Health, School of Pharmacy, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This systematic review aims to characterize and review the methodology of the systematic reviews reporting ophthalmic adverse drug reactions. METHODS: This systematic review followed the Cochrane Collaboration and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guide. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched, by all Ophthalmology journals. All systematic reviews reporting ophthalmic adverse drug reactions in the last decade were included. Data on methodology were extracted. Methodological quality was assessed through A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 scale. Descriptive analysis was performed. RESULTS: Twenty-one systematic reviews were identified. Almost 60% of the systematic reviews reported non-ophthalmic drugs. Nine (43%) systematic reviews did not follow any recommendation. A search filter was not applied in 48% systematic reviews. Observational data was the source of information most included. The methodological quality was assessed in 57% systematic reviews. A meta-analysis was performed in 57% systematic reviews. The protocol's elaboration, the explanation of the sources of information and the list of excluded articles were the domains less performed in the systematic reviews. CONCLUSION: The systematic reviews reporting ophthalmic adverse drug reactions diverged in some methodological aspects. Such an issue deserves further investigation, since discrepancies may lead to biased conclusions and, consequently, impact clinical and/or regulatory decisions.
PURPOSE: This systematic review aims to characterize and review the methodology of the systematic reviews reporting ophthalmic adverse drug reactions. METHODS: This systematic review followed the Cochrane Collaboration and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guide. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched, by all Ophthalmology journals. All systematic reviews reporting ophthalmic adverse drug reactions in the last decade were included. Data on methodology were extracted. Methodological quality was assessed through A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 scale. Descriptive analysis was performed. RESULTS: Twenty-one systematic reviews were identified. Almost 60% of the systematic reviews reported non-ophthalmic drugs. Nine (43%) systematic reviews did not follow any recommendation. A search filter was not applied in 48% systematic reviews. Observational data was the source of information most included. The methodological quality was assessed in 57% systematic reviews. A meta-analysis was performed in 57% systematic reviews. The protocol's elaboration, the explanation of the sources of information and the list of excluded articles were the domains less performed in the systematic reviews. CONCLUSION: The systematic reviews reporting ophthalmic adverse drug reactions diverged in some methodological aspects. Such an issue deserves further investigation, since discrepancies may lead to biased conclusions and, consequently, impact clinical and/or regulatory decisions.