|Title||Systematic reviews of adverse effects: framework for a structured approach.|
|Publication Type||Journal Article|
|Year of Publication||2007|
|Authors||Loke YK, Price D, Herxheimer A|
|Corporate Authors||Cochrane Adverse Effects Methods Group|
|Journal||BMC medical research methodology|
|Keywords||Consensus; Databases, Bibliographic; Decision Support Systems, Clinical; Drug Evaluation; Drug Therapy; Humans; Information Storage and Retrieval; Medical Subject Headings; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design; Risk Assessment|
BACKGROUND: As every healthcare intervention carries some risk of harm, clinical decision making needs to be supported by a systematic assessment of the balance of benefit to harm. A systematic review that considers only the favourable outcomes of an intervention, without also assessing the adverse effects, can mislead by introducing a bias favouring the intervention. Much of the current guidance on systematic reviews is directed towards the evaluation of effectiveness; but this differs in important ways from the methods used in assessing the safety and tolerability of an intervention. A detailed discussion of why, how and when to include adverse effects in a systematic review, is required.
METHODS: This discussion paper, which presupposes a basic knowledge of systematic review methodology, was developed by consensus among experienced reviewers, members of the Adverse Effects Subgroup of The Cochrane Collaboration, and supplemented by a consultation of content experts in reviews methodology, as well as those working in drug safety.
RESULTS: A logical framework for making decisions in reviews that incorporate adverse effects is provided. We explore situations where a comprehensive investigation of adverse effects is warranted and suggest strategies to identify practicable and clinically useful outcomes. The advantages and disadvantages of including observational and experimental study designs are reviewed. The consequences of including separate studies for intended and unintended effects are explained. Detailed advice is given on designing electronic searches for studies with adverse effects data. Reviewers of adverse effects are given general guidance on the assessment of study bias, data collection, analysis, presentation and the interpretation of harms in a systematic review.
CONCLUSION: Readers need to be able to recognize how strategic choices made in the review process determine what harms are found, and how the findings may affect clinical decisions. Researchers undertaking a systematic review that incorporates adverse effect data should understand the rationale for the suggested methods and be able to implement them in their review.
|Alternate Journal||BMC Med Res Methodol|