Article

Systematic reviews of adverse effects: framework for a structured approach

School of Medicine, Health Policy and Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. <>
BMC Medical Research Methodology (Impact Factor: 2.17). 02/2007; 7:32. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-32
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.
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.
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.
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.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Deirdre Price, Jun 25, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
137 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an adverse drug reaction associated with thrombosis, and its paradoxical nature is a challenging issue for the diagnosis. The '4Ts' scoring system represents a simple and efficient way to improve clinical diagnoses of the syndrome. This system classifies patients as having high, intermediate, and low clinical probability for HIT. However, uncertainty remains concerning its clinical meaning, thus weakening the diagnostic value of this screening instrument. We analyzed the diagnostic test accuracy based on individual patient data extracted from published primary scientific studies. This study focused on 186 cases of treatment with heparin, which later evolved into a clinical suspicion of HIT. Upon choosing the most appropriate reference laboratory, the accuracy of the 4Ts was analyzed using the receiver operator characteristic curve analysis. Half of the positive cases (57.1%) were classified as having a high score, while 25.5% of the negative cases were classified as a having low score for HIT. Slightly more than half of all patients (53.2%) were classified as having an intermediate score. As such, the pre-test instrument would most likely fail to distinguish between diseased and nondiseased patients in a relevant number of cases. The calculated accuracy of the summary indicates that the 4Ts can be considered a good, but not a defining, test. Further studies are warranted regarding clinical score systems, either alone or in combination with laboratory tests, in an attempt to improve the early diagnosis of this adverse drug reaction and to provide better care for at-risk patients.
    Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry 08/2011; 412(17-18):1521-6. DOI:10.1016/j.cca.2011.04.026 · 2.76 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Most countries have developed information systems to report drug adverse effects. However, as in other domains where systematic reviews are needed, there is little guidance on how systematic documentation of drug adverse effects should be performed. The objective of the VigiTermes project is to develop a platform to improve documentation of pharmacovigilance case reports for the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory authorities. In order to improve systematic reviews of adverse drug reactions, we developed a prototype that first reproduces and standardizes search strategies, then extracts information from the Medline abstracts which were retrieved and annotates them. The platform aims at providing transparent access and analysis tools to pharmacovigilance experts investigating relevance of safety signals related to drugs. The platform's architecture consists in the integration of two vendor tools ITM and Luxid and one academic web service for knowledge extraction from medical literature. Whereas a manual search performed by a pharmacovigilance expert retrieved 578 publications, the system proposed a list of 229 publications thus decreasing time required for review by 60%. Recall was 70% and additional developments are required in order to improve exhaustivity.
    Studies in health technology and informatics 02/2009; 150:517-21. DOI:10.3233/978-1-60750-044-5-517
  • Source