| Ref ID | 431 |
| First Author | H. M. McIntosh |
| Journal | BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2004 |
| URL | https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2288-4-19 |
| Keywords |
• Harms • Risk of bias |
| Problem(s) |
• Review question not justified / important • Limited quality assessment or no risk of bias • Reliance on randomised controlled trials for harms / safety data |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Small analytical study |
| First Author Country | United Kingdom |
| Aim | To assess and compare the methods used in three systematic reviews related to examining harmful effects of interventions, conducted as Health Technology Assessments for the UK National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment and published between 2001 and 2003. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | All three reviews generated a large volume of work that did not yield much useful information for health care decision makers. The key areas for improvement we identified were focusing the review question, including appropriate study designs for obtaining safety data and developing methods for quality assessment of studies of harmful effects. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 3 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 3 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |