| Ref ID | 123 |
| First Author | S. Golder |
| Journal | HEALTH INFORMATION & LIBRARIES JOURNAL |
| Year Of Publishing | 2014 |
| URL | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24754741/ |
| Keywords |
• Harms • Cochrane • Searching • Reproducibility |
| Problem(s) |
• Insufficient literature searches • Reliance on randomised controlled trials for harms / safety data • Methods not described to enable replication • Search strategy not provided |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | United Kingdom |
| Aim | To compare search methods in systematic reviews of adverse effects with other reviews from a sample published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 6:2011) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects website (June 2011). |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | From 849 systematic reviews dated from 1994 to 2011. A third of reviews (280/849, 33%) limited themselves to data from randomised controlled trials. Adverse effects search terms were used by 72% of reviews and despite recommendations only two reviews report using floating subheadings. 19% of all reviews only searched MEDLINE. Only 74/849 (9%) provided sufficient detail to allow the search to be reproduced. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 849 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 15718 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |