{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,5]],"date-time":"2026-06-05T20:09:43Z","timestamp":1780690183631,"version":"3.54.1"},"reference-count":12,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","issue":"1","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2006,1,27]],"date-time":"2006-01-27T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1138320000000},"content-version":"unspecified","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/www.springer.com\/tdm"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["BMC Med Res Methodol"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2006,12]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n          <jats:sec>\n            <jats:title>Background<\/jats:title>\n            <jats:p>Although the methods for conducting systematic reviews of efficacy are well established, there is much less guidance on how systematic reviews of adverse effects should be performed.<\/jats:p>\n          <\/jats:sec>\n          <jats:sec>\n            <jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n            <jats:p>In order to determine where methodological research is most needed to improve systematic reviews of adverse effects of health care interventions, we conducted a descriptive analysis of systematic reviews published between 1994 and 2005. We searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) to identify systematic reviews in which the primary outcome was an adverse effect or effects. We then extracted data on many of the elements of the systematic review process including: types of interventions studied, adverse effects of interest, resources searched, search strategies, data sources included in reviews, quality assessment of primary data, nature of the data analysis, and source of funding.<\/jats:p>\n          <\/jats:sec>\n          <jats:sec>\n            <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n            <jats:p>256 reviews were included in our analysis, of which the majority evaluated drug interventions and pre-specified the adverse effect or effects of interest. A median of 3 resources were searched for each review and very few reviews (13\/256) provided sufficient information to reproduce their search strategies. Although more than three quarters (185\/243) of the reviews sought to include data from sources other than randomised controlled trials, fewer than half (106\/256) assessed the quality of the studies that were included. Data were pooled quantitatively in most of the reviews (165\/256) but heterogeneity was not always considered. Less than half (123\/256) of the reviews reported on the source of funding.<\/jats:p>\n          <\/jats:sec>\n          <jats:sec>\n            <jats:title>Conclusion<\/jats:title>\n            <jats:p>There is an obvious need to improve the methodology and reporting of systematic reviews of adverse effects. The methodology around identification and quality assessment of primary data is the main concern.<\/jats:p>\n          <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1186\/1471-2288-6-3","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2006,2,4]],"date-time":"2006-02-04T19:15:09Z","timestamp":1139080509000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":45,"title":["Room for improvement? A survey of the methods used in systematic reviews of adverse effects"],"prefix":"10.1186","volume":"6","author":[{"given":"Su","family":"Golder","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Yoon","family":"Loke","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Heather M","family":"McIntosh","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2006,1,27]]},"reference":[{"key":"128_CR1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"65","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.327.7406.65","volume":"327","author":"LG Cuervo","year":"2003","unstructured":"Cuervo LG, Clarke M: Balancing benefits and harms in health care. BMJ. 2003, 327: 65-66. 10.1136\/bmj.327.7406.65.","journal-title":"BMJ"},{"key":"128_CR2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1090","DOI":"10.7326\/0003-4819-142-12_Part_2-200506211-00009","volume":"142","author":"R Chou","year":"2005","unstructured":"Chou R, Helfand M: Challenges in systematic reviews that assess treatment harms. Ann Int Med. 2005, 142: 1090-1099.","journal-title":"Ann Int Med"},{"key":"128_CR3","unstructured":"Loke YK, Price D, Herxheimer A, editors: Including adverse effects. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.5 [updated. Edited by: Higgins JPT, Green S. 2005, May ]; Appendix 6b"},{"key":"128_CR4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"7","DOI":"10.1186\/1471-2288-1-7","volume":"1","author":"S Derry","year":"2001","unstructured":"Derry S, Loke YK, Aronson JK: Incomplete evidence: the inadequacy of databases in tracing published adverse drug reactions in clinical trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2001, 1: 7-10.1186\/1471-2288-1-7.","journal-title":"BMC Med Res Methodol"},{"key":"128_CR5","first-page":"75","volume-title":"12th Cochrane Colloquium","author":"S Golder","year":"2004","unstructured":"Golder S, Duffy S, Glanville J, McIntosh H, Miles J: Developing efficient search strategies to identify papers on adverse events. A: testing precision and sensitivity [abstract]. 12th Cochrane Colloquium. 2004, 75-76. Oct 2\u20136; Ottawa, Ontario, Canada"},{"key":"128_CR6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"560","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2004.11.018","volume":"58","author":"S Wieland","year":"2005","unstructured":"Wieland S, Dickersin K: Selective exposure reporting and Medline indexing limited the search sensitivity for observational studies of the adverse effects of oral contraceptives. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005, 58: 560-567. 10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2004.11.018.","journal-title":"J Clin Epidemiol"},{"key":"128_CR7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"546","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.323.7312.546","volume":"323","author":"E Ernst","year":"2001","unstructured":"Ernst E, Pittler MH: Assessment of therapeutic safety in systematic reviews: literature review. BMJ. 2001, 323: 546-10.1136\/bmj.323.7312.546.","journal-title":"BMJ"},{"key":"128_CR8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"19","DOI":"10.1186\/1471-2288-4-19","volume":"4","author":"HM McIntosh","year":"2004","unstructured":"McIntosh HM, Woolacott NF, Bagnall AM: Assessing harmful effects in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2004, 4: 19-10.1186\/1471-2288-4-19.","journal-title":"BMC Med Res Methodol"},{"key":"128_CR9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1167","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.326.7400.1167","volume":"326","author":"J Lexchin","year":"2003","unstructured":"Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O: Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ. 2003, 326: 1167-1170. 10.1136\/bmj.326.7400.1167.","journal-title":"BMJ"},{"key":"128_CR10","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J: The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 3: 25-10.1186\/1471-2288-3-25. 2003 Nov 10","DOI":"10.1186\/1471-2288-3-25"},{"key":"128_CR11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1896","DOI":"10.1016\/S0140-6736(99)04149-5","volume":"354","author":"D Moher","year":"1999","unstructured":"Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF, for the QUOROM group: Improving the quality of reports of meta-analysses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. The Lancet. 1999, 354: 1896-1900. 10.1016\/S0140-6736(99)04149-5.","journal-title":"The Lancet"},{"key":"128_CR12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2008","DOI":"10.1001\/jama.283.15.2008","volume":"283","author":"DF Stroup","year":"2000","unstructured":"Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB: Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology. A proposal for reporting. JAMA. 2000, 283: 2008-2012. 10.1001\/jama.283.15.2008.","journal-title":"JAMA"}],"container-title":["BMC Medical Research Methodology"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"http:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1186\/1471-2288-6-3.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"http:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1186\/1471-2288-6-3\/fulltext.html","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"http:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1186\/1471-2288-6-3","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1186\/1471-2288-6-3.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2021,9,1]],"date-time":"2021-09-01T06:06:45Z","timestamp":1630476405000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com\/articles\/10.1186\/1471-2288-6-3"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2006,1,27]]},"references-count":12,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2006,12]]}},"alternative-id":["128"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/1471-2288-6-3","relation":{},"ISSN":["1471-2288"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1471-2288","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2006,1,27]]},"assertion":[{"value":"19 September 2005","order":1,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"27 January 2006","order":2,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"27 January 2006","order":3,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}}],"article-number":"3"}}