| Ref ID | 339 |
| First Author | L. Li |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2019 |
| URL | https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(18)30704-2/fulltext |
| Keywords |
• Harms • Cochrane • Low reporting quality |
| Problem(s) |
• Selective reporting of harms / safety / adverse events / side effects • Low reporting (PRISMA) quality |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | China |
| Checklists |
• PRISMA-Harms |
| Aim | To assess how well safety information was reported among drug systematic reviews (Cochrane and non-Cochrane) published in 2015, predating PRISMA harms checklist, and explore factors associated with better reporting. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | Scores on the PRISMA harms were low (median 4, [first, third quartile: 2, 6]), with no difference between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews (4.5 [2, 7] vs. 4 [2.5, 5]; P 5 0.29). Among all eligible reviews, only one item (i.e., state conclusions in coherence with the review findings) was reported adequately (81.6%); proportion of reporting for other items ranged from 1.7% to 68.3%. The four essential reporting items from PRISMA harms checklist were also poorly complied (proportion of adherence ranged from 1.7% to 9.2%). Multivariable linear regression analyses found no significant associations between any study characteristic and reporting on the PRISMA harms, likely because of limited variability in scores across studies. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 120 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 3881 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |