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. M...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2019-10-01
|
| Series: | Systematic Reviews |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13643-019-1167-5 |
| _version_ | 1818256461581516800 |
|---|---|
| author | Ana Penedones Carlos Alves Francisco Batel Marques |
| author_facet | Ana Penedones Carlos Alves Francisco Batel Marques |
| author_sort | Ana Penedones |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-12T17:28:08Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-739cc4cb53e64adbbfe6d18137e9a260 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2046-4053 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-12T17:28:08Z |
| publishDate | 2019-10-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Systematic Reviews |
| spelling | doaj.art-739cc4cb53e64adbbfe6d18137e9a2602022-12-22T00:17:27ZengBMCSystematic Reviews2046-40532019-10-01811710.1186/s13643-019-1167-5A comparison between two recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews on drug’s safetyAna Penedones0Carlos Alves1Francisco Batel Marques2Centre for Health Technology Assessment and Drug Research (CHAD), Association for Innovation and Biomedical Research on Light and Image (AIBILI)Centre for Health Technology Assessment and Drug Research (CHAD), Association for Innovation and Biomedical Research on Light and Image (AIBILI)Centre for Health Technology Assessment and Drug Research (CHAD), Association for Innovation and Biomedical Research on Light and Image (AIBILI)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.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13643-019-1167-5Drug-related side effects and adverse reactionsGuidelineSystematic review |
| spellingShingle | Ana Penedones Carlos Alves Francisco Batel Marques A comparison between two recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews on drug’s safety Systematic Reviews Drug-related side effects and adverse reactions Guideline Systematic review |
| title | A comparison between two recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews on drug’s safety |
| title_full | A comparison between two recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews on drug’s safety |
| title_fullStr | A comparison between two recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews on drug’s safety |
| title_full_unstemmed | A comparison between two recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews on drug’s safety |
| title_short | A comparison between two recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews on drug’s safety |
| title_sort | comparison between two recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews on drug s safety |
| topic | Drug-related side effects and adverse reactions Guideline Systematic review |
| url | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13643-019-1167-5 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT anapenedones acomparisonbetweentworecommendationstoconductandreportsystematicreviewsondrugssafety AT carlosalves acomparisonbetweentworecommendationstoconductandreportsystematicreviewsondrugssafety AT franciscobatelmarques acomparisonbetweentworecommendationstoconductandreportsystematicreviewsondrugssafety AT anapenedones comparisonbetweentworecommendationstoconductandreportsystematicreviewsondrugssafety AT carlosalves comparisonbetweentworecommendationstoconductandreportsystematicreviewsondrugssafety AT franciscobatelmarques comparisonbetweentworecommendationstoconductandreportsystematicreviewsondrugssafety |