TY - JOUR
T1 - Harms in Systematic Reviews Paper 3
T2 - Given the same data sources, systematic reviews of gabapentin have different results for harms
AU - Qureshi, Riaz
AU - Mayo-Wilson, Evan
AU - Rittiphairoj, Thanitsara
AU - McAdams-DeMarco, Mara
AU - Guallar, Eliseo
AU - Li, Tianjing
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Authors
PY - 2022/3
Y1 - 2022/3
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Clinical Trials
KW - Harms
KW - Meta-analysis
KW - Synthesis
KW - Systematic Reviews
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85120462305&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85120462305&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.10.025
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.10.025
M3 - Article
C2 - 34742790
AN - SCOPUS:85120462305
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 143
SP - 224
EP - 241
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
ER -