Harms in Systematic Reviews Paper 3: Given the same data sources, systematic reviews of gabapentin have different results for harms.

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. 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). 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. 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. Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Citation

Riaz Qureshi, Evan Mayo-Wilson, Thanitsara Rittiphairoj, Mara McAdams-DeMarco, Eliseo Guallar, Tianjing Li. Harms in Systematic Reviews Paper 3: Given the same data sources, systematic reviews of gabapentin have different results for harms. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2021 Nov 03;143:224-241

Mesh Tags

Substances

PMID: 34742790

search → result