Article2011

Pitfalls in meta‐analyses on adverse events reported from clinical trials

Hanyao Huang · Elizabeth B. Andrews · Judith K. Jones · Mary Lou Skovron · Hugh A. Tilson

26 citations0/0 files storedPharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Abstract

In recent years, comparative effectiveness research has been more aggressively pursued as a means to improve health care, including systematic reviews and meta-analyses to inform health policy decision making. Because most clinical trials have pre-specified approaches to collecting data on efficacy, the value of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in assessing efficacy outcomes is generally accepted. In contrast, collection of data on adverse events is seldom well structured. Hence, the methodological considerations for comparing adverse events from such non-aligned sources differ substantially from those for comparing efficacy endpoints. We address several important pitfalls in performing systematic reviews and meta-analyses on adverse events in clinical trials, and we offer recommendations for remedies. Some pitfalls arise from the fact that adverse events often are not the primary endpoints in clinical trials, hence incomplete reporting, inconsistent event definitions, various level of effort in reporting unexpected adverse events, and inappropriate use of statistical testing. Others are posed by certain important characteristics of adverse events data. The very concept of "adverse events" may skew the ascertainment, attribution, and reporting of the events. In addition, problems for meta-analysis methods arise in situations involving zero or rare events and withdrawal or loss to follow-up because of adverse events. We highlight recent initiatives that may improve the assessment and cross-study summary of adverse events. We anticipate that future guidance for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses will evolve to address the important methodological pitfalls we highlight here, and the practice of assessing the totality of evidence on drug safety will be improved.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 26 citations exist upstream.

References

2009The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration 1999Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement 2004What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta‐analysis of sparse data 2004Better Reporting of Harms in Randomized Trials: An Extension of the CONSORT Statement 2006Much ado about nothing: a comparison of the performance of meta‐analytical methods with rare events 2008AHRQ Series Paper 4: Assessing harms when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health-Care Program 2005Challenges in Systematic Reviews That Assess Treatment Harms 2008Exact and efficient inference procedure for meta-analysis and its application to the analysis of independent 2 x 2 tables with all available data but without artificial continuity correction

Cited by

2018Systematic review and meta-analysis in GI endoscopy: Why do we need them? How can we read them? Should we trust them?2015Meta-analyses of pain studies: What we have learned 2016Comparative rates of harms in randomized trials from more developed versus less developed countries may be different

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.