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	• Harms • Cochrane • 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?	N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	Yes