Comparison of search strategies in systematic reviews of adverse effects to other systematic reviews

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 Cochrane
Harms
Reproducibility
Searching
Problem(s) Insufficient literature searches
Reliance on randomised controlled trials for harms / safety data
Methods not described to enable replication
Search strategy not provided
Number of systematic reviews included 849
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.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? No