Systematic reviews of adverse effects of drug interventions: a survey of their conduct and reporting quality

Abstract

Reporting was poor with respect to searching and definition/collection of adverse effects and guidelines such as QUOROM and MOOSE could be employed by authors. Comprehensive and clear reporting should be enforced by journals. The low proportion of reviews assessing quality, and the inconsistencies observed when modelling rare event data reflect the need for empirical research to underpin methods in these areas.

Fighting fire with fire: Poisonous Chinese herbal medicine for cancer therapy

“…However, several adverse drug reactions/events were frequently reported, which let the public down and made the situation of CHM injections worrisome. Gets to the bottom of a matter, inappropriate compatibility with other injections, unreasonable menstruum, extra fast dripping rate and overdose were unquestionably the main causes (Cornelius et al, 2009;Bian et al, 2010). Take Shuanghuanglian injection as an example, its combination with penicillins accounts for 13.38% of the total adverse cases, which ranked the first in the past allergic history .…”

Zero is an important number

“…Some published studies have shown less severe neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) [2][3][4][5] and greater gestational age at birth [4], birth weight [4,6] and head circumference [6,7] after prenatal buprenorphine exposure compared to prenatal methadone. What has been difficult to disentangle, however, is whether these improved birth outcomes are due to the protective effect of buprenorphine compared to methadone or to confounding from maternal treatment choices [8].…”

“…They discuss the variable methods used for gathering and recording adverse events in the primary studies, and the lack of power to detect meaningful differences between treatment groups for rare outcomes. These limitations have been commonly acknowledged elsewhere, along with the difficulties in identifying all relevant studies using conventional systematic search strategies and the lack of guidelines for performing systematic reviews of adverse events [6][7][8][9][10][11][12].…”

Survey of the Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews in Rehabilitation

“…This study is a key milestone in determining the reporting characteristics of SRs of medicine's interventions. [13][14][15][16][17][18] Complete, accurate, and transparent reporting is an integral part of responsible research conduct. We need more studies to explore limitations of the reporting of crucial information, along with efforts to promote transparent reporting of research and the use of reporting guidelines in clinical journals.…”