Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Methodology

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

Authors: Ana Penedones, Carlos Alves, Francisco Batel Marques

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
go back to reference Oxman A, Guyatt G. The science of reviewing research. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993;703:125–33.CrossRef Oxman A, Guyatt G. The science of reviewing research. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993;703:125–33.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Singh S, Loke YK. Drug safety assessment in clinical trials: methodological challenges and opportunities. Trials. 2012;13:138.CrossRef Singh S, Loke YK. Drug safety assessment in clinical trials: methodological challenges and opportunities. Trials. 2012;13:138.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Strom BL. Study designs available for pharmacoepidemiology studies. In: Strom BL, Kimmel SE, editors. Textbook of Pharmacoepidemiology. West Sussex: Wiley; 2006. p. 13–24. Strom BL. Study designs available for pharmacoepidemiology studies. In: Strom BL, Kimmel SE, editors. Textbook of Pharmacoepidemiology. West Sussex: Wiley; 2006. p. 13–24.
5.
go back to reference Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–9.CrossRef Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–9.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Updated March 2011. Available at: www.handbook.cochrane.org Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Updated March 2011. Available at: www.​handbook.​cochrane.​org
7.
go back to reference Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic reviews. CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in healthcare. 2009. ISBN: 1900640473. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic reviews. CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in healthcare. 2009. ISBN: 1900640473.
10.
go back to reference Penedones A, Mendes D, Alves C, et al. Drug-induced ocular adverse reactions: review of the safety alerts issued during the last decade. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2015;31(5):258–68.CrossRef Penedones A, Mendes D, Alves C, et al. Drug-induced ocular adverse reactions: review of the safety alerts issued during the last decade. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2015;31(5):258–68.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Zorzela L, Loke YK, Ioannidis JP, et al. PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms reporting in systematic reviews. BMJ. 2016;352:i157.CrossRef Zorzela L, Loke YK, Ioannidis JP, et al. PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms reporting in systematic reviews. BMJ. 2016;352:i157.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Alves C, Penedones A, Mendes D, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between systemic fluoroquinolones and retinal detachment. Acta Ophthalmol. 2016;94(5):e251–9.CrossRef Alves C, Penedones A, Mendes D, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between systemic fluoroquinolones and retinal detachment. Acta Ophthalmol. 2016;94(5):e251–9.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Penedones A, Mendes D, Alves C, et al. Safety monitoring of ophthalmic biologics: a systematic review of pre- and postmarketing safety data. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2014;30(9):729–51.CrossRef Penedones A, Mendes D, Alves C, et al. Safety monitoring of ophthalmic biologics: a systematic review of pre- and postmarketing safety data. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2014;30(9):729–51.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Alves C, Macedo AF, Batel MF. Sources of information used by regulatory agencies on the generation of drug safety alerts. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;69(12):2083–94.CrossRef Alves C, Macedo AF, Batel MF. Sources of information used by regulatory agencies on the generation of drug safety alerts. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;69(12):2083–94.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, et al. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008;22(2):338–42.CrossRef Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, et al. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008;22(2):338–42.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Haddaway NR, Collins AM, Coughlin D, et al. The role of Google Scholar in evidence reviews and its applicability to grey literature searching. PLoS One. 2015;10(9):e0138237.CrossRef Haddaway NR, Collins AM, Coughlin D, et al. The role of Google Scholar in evidence reviews and its applicability to grey literature searching. PLoS One. 2015;10(9):e0138237.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Baudard M, Yavchitz A, Ravaud P, et al. Impact of searching clinical trial registries in systematic reviews of pharmaceutical treatments: methodological systematic review and reanalysis of meta-analyses. BMJ. 2017;356:j448.CrossRef Baudard M, Yavchitz A, Ravaud P, et al. Impact of searching clinical trial registries in systematic reviews of pharmaceutical treatments: methodological systematic review and reanalysis of meta-analyses. BMJ. 2017;356:j448.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Franco JVA, Garrote VL, Escobar Liquitay CM, et al. Identification of problems in search strategies in Cochrane Reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2018;9(3):408–16.PubMed Franco JVA, Garrote VL, Escobar Liquitay CM, et al. Identification of problems in search strategies in Cochrane Reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2018;9(3):408–16.PubMed
20.
go back to reference Glasziou P, Vandenbroucke JP, Chalmers I. Assessing the quality of research. BMJ. 2004;328:39–41.CrossRef Glasziou P, Vandenbroucke JP, Chalmers I. Assessing the quality of research. BMJ. 2004;328:39–41.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference McIntosh HM, Woolacott NF, Bagnall AM. Assessing harmful effects in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2004;4:19.CrossRef McIntosh HM, Woolacott NF, Bagnall AM. Assessing harmful effects in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2004;4:19.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Faillie JL, Ferrer P, Gouverneur A, et al. A new risk of bias checklist applicable to randomized trials, observational studies, and systematic reviews was developed and validated to be used for systematic reviews focusing on drug adverse events. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;86:168–75.CrossRef Faillie JL, Ferrer P, Gouverneur A, et al. A new risk of bias checklist applicable to randomized trials, observational studies, and systematic reviews was developed and validated to be used for systematic reviews focusing on drug adverse events. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;86:168–75.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Zorzela L, Golder S, Liu Y, et al. Quality of reporting in systematic reviews of adverse events: systematic review. BMJ. 2014;348:f7668.CrossRef Zorzela L, Golder S, Liu Y, et al. Quality of reporting in systematic reviews of adverse events: systematic review. BMJ. 2014;348:f7668.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Cornelius VR, Perrio MJ, Shakir SA, et al. Systematic reviews of adverse effects of drug interventions: a survey of their conduct and reporting quality. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2009;18(12):1223–31.CrossRef Cornelius VR, Perrio MJ, Shakir SA, et al. Systematic reviews of adverse effects of drug interventions: a survey of their conduct and reporting quality. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2009;18(12):1223–31.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Mahady SE, Schlub T, Bero L, et al. Side effects are incompletely reported among systematic reviews in gastroenterology. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(2):144–53.CrossRef Mahady SE, Schlub T, Bero L, et al. Side effects are incompletely reported among systematic reviews in gastroenterology. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(2):144–53.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Penedones A, Batel MF. Methodologic assessment of the systematic reviews of ophthalmic adverse drug reactions published in ophthalmology journals: a systematic review. Ophthalmic Res. 2018;60(2):55–68.CrossRef Penedones A, Batel MF. Methodologic assessment of the systematic reviews of ophthalmic adverse drug reactions published in ophthalmology journals: a systematic review. Ophthalmic Res. 2018;60(2):55–68.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Li L, Xu C, Deng K, et al. The reporting of safety among drug systematic reviews was poor before the implementation of the PRISMA harms checklist. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;105:125–35.CrossRef Li L, Xu C, Deng K, et al. The reporting of safety among drug systematic reviews was poor before the implementation of the PRISMA harms checklist. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;105:125–35.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
A comparison between two recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews on drug’s safety
Authors
Ana Penedones
Carlos Alves
Francisco Batel Marques
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1167-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Systematic Reviews 1/2019 Go to the issue