Dataset Information

A comparison between two recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews on drug's safety.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Several recommendations are available to conduct and report a systematic review of adverse drug reactions. This study is aimed at identifying and comparing the methodologies of the two most commonly used recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews on drug's safety. METHODS:Two systematic reviews were conducted following the recommendations "Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions" and "Systematic Reviews' Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidance for undertaking reviews in healthcare." The methods of each recommendation were characterized, and the results and the discussion of each systematic review were also evaluated. RESULTS:The methodologies of both recommendations are similar. The review question was structured. Both recommendations suggest to include pre- and post-marketing data. The recommended data sources differed and, consequently, the results of the systematic reviews (37 vs. 35 studies). Other aspects of search literature were identical. Different tools are suggested to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. For case reports, both recommendations only report some questions that may be helpful to assess risk of bias. The reporting of the results and discussion is also identical for both recommendations. CONCLUSIONS:Few methodological differences were observed between the analyzed recommendations to conduct a systematic review on drug's safety. Combining their methods into a single and recognized recommendation could be of great value.

SUBMITTER: Penedones A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6796334 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A comparison between two recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews on drug's safety.

Penedones Ana A Alves Carlos C Batel Marques Francisco F

Systematic reviews 20191016 1

<h4>Background</h4>Several recommendations are available to conduct and report a systematic review of adverse drug reactions. This study is aimed at identifying and comparing the methodologies of the two most commonly used recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews on drug's safety.<h4>Methods</h4>Two systematic reviews were conducted following the recommendations "Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions" and "Systematic Reviews' Centre for Reviews and Disseminati ...[more]

PMID: 31619279

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews are used widely to guide health care decisions. Several tools have been created to assess systematic review quality. The measurement tool for assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews known as the AMSTAR tool applies a yes/no score to eleven relevant domains of review methodology. This tool has been reworked so that each domain is scored based on a four point scale, producing R-AMSTAR.Methods and findingsWe aimed to compare the AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR tools in assessing systematic reviews in the field of assisted reproduction for subfertility. All published systematic reviews on assisted reproductive technology, with the latest search for studies taking place from 2007-2011, were considered. Reviews that contained no included studies or considered diagnostic outcomes were excluded. Thirty each of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews were randomly selected from a search of relevant databases. Both tools were then applied to all sixty reviews. The results were converted to percentage scores and all reviews graded and ranked based on this. AMSTAR produced a much wider variation in percentage scores and achieved higher inter-rater reliability than R-AMSTAR according to kappa statistics. The average rating for Cochrane reviews was consistent between the two tools (88.3% for R-AMSTAR versus 83.6% for AMSTAR) but inconsistent for non-Cochrane reviews (63.9% R-AMSTAR vs. 38.5% AMSTAR). In comparing the rankings generated between the two tools Cochrane reviews changed an average of 4.2 places, compared to 2.9 for non-Cochrane.ConclusionR-AMSTAR provided greater guidance in the assessment of domains and produced quantitative results. However, there were many problems with the construction of its criteria and AMSTAR was much easier to apply consistently. We recommend that AMSTAR incorporates the findings of this study and produces additional guidance for its application in order to improve its reliability and usefulness.

Project description:BackgroundCritics of systematic reviews have argued that these studies often fail to inform clinical decision making because their results are far too general, that the data are sparse, such that findings cannot be applied to individual patients or for other decision making. While there is some consensus on methods for investigating statistical and methodological heterogeneity, little attention has been paid to clinical aspects of heterogeneity. Clinical heterogeneity, true effect heterogeneity, can be defined as variability among studies in the participants, the types or timing of outcome measurements, and the intervention characteristics. The objective of this project was to develop recommendations for investigating clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews.MethodsWe used a modified Delphi technique with three phases: (1) pre-meeting item generation; (2) face-to-face consensus meeting in the form of a modified Delphi process; and (3) post-meeting feedback. We identified and invited potential participants with expertise in systematic review methodology, systematic review reporting, or statistical aspects of meta-analyses, or those who published papers on clinical heterogeneity.ResultsBetween April and June of 2011, we conducted phone calls with participants. In June 2011 we held the face-to-face focus group meeting in Ann Arbor, Michigan. First, we agreed upon a definition of clinical heterogeneity: Variations in the treatment effect that are due to differences in clinically related characteristics. Next, we discussed and generated recommendations in the following 12 categories related to investigating clinical heterogeneity: the systematic review team, planning investigations, rationale for choice of variables, types of clinical variables, the role of statistical heterogeneity, the use of plotting and visual aids, dealing with outlier studies, the number of investigations or variables, the role of the best evidence synthesis, types of statistical methods, the interpretation of findings, and reporting.ConclusionsClinical heterogeneity is common in systematic reviews. Our recommendations can help guide systematic reviewers in conducting valid and reliable investigations of clinical heterogeneity. Findings of these investigations may allow for increased applicability of findings of systematic reviews to the management of individual patients.

Project description:BackgroundAMSTAR-2 ('A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2') and ROBIS ('Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews') are independent instruments used to assess the quality of conduct of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs). The degree of overlap in methodological constructs together with the reliability and any methodological gaps have not been systematically assessed and summarized in the field of nutrition.MethodsWe performed a systematic survey of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for SR/MAs published between January 2010 and November 2018 that examined the effects of any nutritional intervention/exposure for cancer prevention. We followed a systematic review approach including two independent reviewers at each step of the process. For AMSTAR-2 (16 items) and ROBIS (21 items), we assessed the similarities, the inter-rater reliability (IRR) and any methodological limitations of the instruments. Our protocol for the survey was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019121116).ResultsWe found 4 similar domain constructs based on 11 comparisons from a total of 12 AMSTAR-2 and 14 ROBIS items. Ten comparisons were considered fully overlapping. Based on Gwet's agreement coefficients, six comparisons provided almost perfect (> 0.8), three substantial (> 0.6), and one a moderate level of agreement (> 0.4). While there is considerable overlap in constructs, AMSTAR-2 uniquely addresses explaining the selection of study designs for inclusion, reporting on excluded studies with justification, sources of funding of primary studies, and reviewers' conflict of interest. By contrast, ROBIS uniquely addresses appropriateness and restrictions within eligibility criteria, reducing risk of error in risk of bias (RoB) assessments, completeness of data extracted for analyses, the inclusion of all necessary studies for analyses, and adherence to predefined analysis plan.ConclusionsAmong the questions on AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS, 70.3% (26/37 items) address the same or similar methodological constructs. While the IRR of these constructs was moderate to perfect, there are unique methodological constructs that each instrument independently addresses. Notably, both instruments do not address the reporting of absolute estimates of effect or the overall certainty of the evidence, items that are crucial for users' wishing to interpret the importance of SR/MA results.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Qigong, as one of the essential elements of Traditional Chinese exercises, has been used to improve physical and psychological health and combat diseases in China for thousands of years. In recent years, the beneficial effects of Qigong on different medical conditions are becoming more accepted by both patients and health care providers. Although it is a common impression that Qigong and related therapies are generally safe procedures, but the current understanding of its adverse events is fragmented. Thus, we conducted this overview to synthesize comprehensively existing systematic reviews on adverse events associated with Qigong and related therapies, and our findings can be used to informing clinicians, Qigong practitioner, and patients alike on applying such treatments or interventions in clinical treatment and daily life training mindful manner, and provide a guideline for researchers in future. METHODS:A systematic review of reviews will be performed. A literature search strategy designed by a number of specialists in the fields of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), sports medicine, health information, and Qigong training will be carried out in relevant English and Chinese electronic database. The date range of search will start from inception to the search date. Two reviewers will identify relevant studies, extract data information, and then assess the methodical quality by Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Any types of systematic review that summarized adverse effects related to Qigong and related therapies in human will be included. Any safety-related outcomes will be considered as the primary outcomes of this overview. Where objectives from 2 or more reviews overlap, we will assess the causes of any noted discrepancies between reviews. An overall summary of results will be performed using tabular and graphical approaches and will be supplemented by narrative description. RESULTS:This overview will identify any adverse events associated with nonstandardized Qigong and related therapies procedures based on current relevant literature evidence of safety for Qigong. CONCLUSION:Our overview will provide evidence to help synthesize the broad degree of information available on furthering the knowledge, safety, and application of Qigong. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Formal ethical approval is not required, as this study is an overview based on the published systematic reviews. The result of this overview of systematic reviews will be published in a peer-reviewed journal or disseminated at national and international conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:PROSPERO CRD42018109409.

Dataset Information

A comparison between two recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews on drug's safety.

Publications

A comparison between two recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews on drug's safety.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets