- Framework of problems / Transparent
- Selective reporting of harms / safety / adverse events / side effects
- The reporting of safety among drug systematic reviews was poor before the implementation of the PRISMA harms checklist
| 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 |
Cochrane Harms Low reporting quality |
| Problem(s) |
Selective reporting of harms / safety / adverse events / side effects Low reporting (PRISMA) quality |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 120 |
| 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. |
| 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? | Yes |