|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
abstract
Objectives
We
sought to identify the proportion of systematic reviews of adverse
effects which search for unpublished data and the success rates of
identifying unpublished data for inclusion in a systematic review.
Study Design and Setting
Two
reviewers independently screened all records published in 2014 in the
Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) for systematic
reviews where the primary aim was to evaluate an adverse effect or
effects. Data were extracted on the types of adverse effects and
interventions evaluated, sources searched, how many unpublished studies
were included, and source or type of unpublished data included.
Results
From
9,129 DARE abstracts, 348 met our inclusion criteria. Most of these
reviews evaluated a drug intervention (237/348, 68%) with specified
adverse effects (250/348, 72%). Over a third (136/348, 39%) of all the
reviews searched, a specific source for unpublished data, such as
conference abstracts or trial registries, and nearly half of these
reviews (65/136, 48%) included unpublished data. An additional 13
reviews included unpublished data despite not searching specific sources
for unpublished studies. Overall, 22% (78/348) of reviews included
unpublished data/studies.
Conclusion
Most
reviews of adverse effects do not search specifically for unpublished
data but, of those that do, nearly half are successful.
Keywords
- Adverse effects;
- Systematic review;
- Unpublished data;
- Gray literature;
- Trial registry;
- Information retrieval
- Funding: S.G. is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (PDF-2014-07-041).
0 comments :
Post a Comment
Your comments?
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.