A comparison between two recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews on drug's safety
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2019 |
Outros Autores: | , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
Texto Completo: | http://hdl.handle.net/10316/107403 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1167-5 |
Resumo: | Background: Several recommendations are available to conduct and report a systematic review of adverse drug reactions. This study is aimed at identifying and comparing the methodologies of the two most commonly used recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews on drug’s safety. Methods: Two systematic reviews were conducted following the recommendations “Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions” and “Systematic Reviews’ Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidance for undertaking reviews in healthcare.” The methods of each recommendation were characterized, and the results and the discussion of each systematic review were also evaluated. Results: The methodologies of both recommendations are similar. The review question was structured. Both recommendations suggest to include pre- and post-marketing data. The recommended data sources differed and, consequently, the results of the systematic reviews (37 vs. 35 studies). Other aspects of search literature were identical. Different tools are suggested to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. For case reports, both recommendations only report some questions that may be helpful to assess risk of bias. The reporting of the results and discussion is also identical for both recommendations. Conclusions: Few methodological differences were observed between the analyzed recommendations to conduct a systematic review on drug’s safety. Combining their methods into a single and recognized recommendation could be of great value. |
id |
RCAP_a0b08020d78851427b4122fd22cde6dd |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:estudogeral.uc.pt:10316/107403 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
A comparison between two recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews on drug's safetyDrug-related side effects and adverse reactionsGuidelineSystematic reviewData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsInformation Storage and RetrievalMarketingResearch DesignReview Literature as TopicBackground: Several recommendations are available to conduct and report a systematic review of adverse drug reactions. This study is aimed at identifying and comparing the methodologies of the two most commonly used recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews on drug’s safety. Methods: Two systematic reviews were conducted following the recommendations “Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions” and “Systematic Reviews’ Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidance for undertaking reviews in healthcare.” The methods of each recommendation were characterized, and the results and the discussion of each systematic review were also evaluated. Results: The methodologies of both recommendations are similar. The review question was structured. Both recommendations suggest to include pre- and post-marketing data. The recommended data sources differed and, consequently, the results of the systematic reviews (37 vs. 35 studies). Other aspects of search literature were identical. Different tools are suggested to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. For case reports, both recommendations only report some questions that may be helpful to assess risk of bias. The reporting of the results and discussion is also identical for both recommendations. Conclusions: Few methodological differences were observed between the analyzed recommendations to conduct a systematic review on drug’s safety. Combining their methods into a single and recognized recommendation could be of great value.Springer Nature2019-10-16info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttp://hdl.handle.net/10316/107403http://hdl.handle.net/10316/107403https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1167-5eng2046-4053Penedones, AnaAlves, CarlosBatel-Marques, Franciscoinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-07-07T11:24:41Zoai:estudogeral.uc.pt:10316/107403Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T21:23:45.770023Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
A comparison between two recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews on drug's safety |
title |
A comparison between two recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews on drug's safety |
spellingShingle |
A comparison between two recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews on drug's safety Penedones, Ana Drug-related side effects and adverse reactions Guideline Systematic review Data Interpretation, Statistical Humans Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions Information Storage and Retrieval Marketing Research Design Review Literature as Topic |
title_short |
A comparison between two recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews on drug's safety |
title_full |
A comparison between two recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews on drug's safety |
title_fullStr |
A comparison between two recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews on drug's safety |
title_full_unstemmed |
A comparison between two recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews on drug's safety |
title_sort |
A comparison between two recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews on drug's safety |
author |
Penedones, Ana |
author_facet |
Penedones, Ana Alves, Carlos Batel-Marques, Francisco |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Alves, Carlos Batel-Marques, Francisco |
author2_role |
author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Penedones, Ana Alves, Carlos Batel-Marques, Francisco |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Drug-related side effects and adverse reactions Guideline Systematic review Data Interpretation, Statistical Humans Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions Information Storage and Retrieval Marketing Research Design Review Literature as Topic |
topic |
Drug-related side effects and adverse reactions Guideline Systematic review Data Interpretation, Statistical Humans Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions Information Storage and Retrieval Marketing Research Design Review Literature as Topic |
description |
Background: Several recommendations are available to conduct and report a systematic review of adverse drug reactions. This study is aimed at identifying and comparing the methodologies of the two most commonly used recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews on drug’s safety. Methods: Two systematic reviews were conducted following the recommendations “Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions” and “Systematic Reviews’ Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidance for undertaking reviews in healthcare.” The methods of each recommendation were characterized, and the results and the discussion of each systematic review were also evaluated. Results: The methodologies of both recommendations are similar. The review question was structured. Both recommendations suggest to include pre- and post-marketing data. The recommended data sources differed and, consequently, the results of the systematic reviews (37 vs. 35 studies). Other aspects of search literature were identical. Different tools are suggested to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. For case reports, both recommendations only report some questions that may be helpful to assess risk of bias. The reporting of the results and discussion is also identical for both recommendations. Conclusions: Few methodological differences were observed between the analyzed recommendations to conduct a systematic review on drug’s safety. Combining their methods into a single and recognized recommendation could be of great value. |
publishDate |
2019 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2019-10-16 |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/10316/107403 http://hdl.handle.net/10316/107403 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1167-5 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10316/107403 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1167-5 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
2046-4053 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Springer Nature |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Springer Nature |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1799134123857543168 |