Riaz Qureshi1, Evan Mayo-Wilson2, Thanitsara Rittiphairoj3, Mara McAdams-DeMarco4, Eliseo Guallar1, Tianjing Li5. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Public Health, Bloomington, ID, USA. 3. Cochrane Eyes and Vision United States, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. 5. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA. Electronic address: tianjing.li@cuanschutz.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In this methodologic study (Part 2 of 2), we examined the overlap in sources of evidence and the corresponding results for harms in systematic reviews for gabapentin. STUDY DESIGN & SETTING: We extracted all citations referenced as sources of evidence for harms of gabapentin from 70 systematic reviews, as well as the harms assessed and numerical results. We assessed consistency of harms between pairs of reviews with a high degree of overlap in sources of evidence (>50%) as determined by corrected covered area (CCA). RESULTS: We found 514 reports cited across 70 included reviews. Most reports (244/514, 48%) were not cited in more than one review. Among 18 pairs of reviews, we found reviews had differences in which harms were assessed and their choice to meta-analyze estimates or present descriptive summaries. When a specific harm was meta-analyzed in a pair of reviews, we found similar effect estimates. CONCLUSION: Differences in harms results across reviews can occur because the choice of harms is driven by reviewer preferences, rather than standardized approaches to selecting harms for assessment. A paradigm shift is needed in the current approach to synthesizing harms.
OBJECTIVE: In this methodologic study (Part 2 of 2), we examined the overlap in sources of evidence and the corresponding results for harms in systematic reviews for gabapentin. STUDY DESIGN & SETTING: We extracted all citations referenced as sources of evidence for harms of gabapentin from 70 systematic reviews, as well as the harms assessed and numerical results. We assessed consistency of harms between pairs of reviews with a high degree of overlap in sources of evidence (>50%) as determined by corrected covered area (CCA). RESULTS: We found 514 reports cited across 70 included reviews. Most reports (244/514, 48%) were not cited in more than one review. Among 18 pairs of reviews, we found reviews had differences in which harms were assessed and their choice to meta-analyze estimates or present descriptive summaries. When a specific harm was meta-analyzed in a pair of reviews, we found similar effect estimates. CONCLUSION: Differences in harms results across reviews can occur because the choice of harms is driven by reviewer preferences, rather than standardized approaches to selecting harms for assessment. A paradigm shift is needed in the current approach to synthesizing harms.