To assess the reporting of harms in recently published systematic reviews of gastroenterology interventions.
Level of Investigation
Descriptive
Summary of Findings
One in three systematic reviews (33%) did not refer to harms of the intervention anywhere in the article. Less than half of the studies included adverse events as an outcome measure, and data on absolute rates of adverse events were only provided in 28%. Most (65%) did not include any figures or tables on adverse event; however, all included these on efficacy outcomes. Regression analyses indicated that the use of reporting guidelines was associated with better harms reporting
Number of systematic reviews included
78
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed
692
Treatment impacted
No
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted
Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description
Does the article have a publicly available protocol?
No
Did the review team include both methodological and clinical experts?
Yes
Sampling strategy for obtaining the systematic reviews under assessment
Comprehensive searches on a particular topic (clinical or methodological)
Was the sample size of systematic reviews subject to any formal sample size or power calculation?
No
Were any or all of the study selection and data extraction performed in duplicate?
Yes
Were any statistical adjustments made to correct for confounding?
Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?
