Cited by 228Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug ReactionsMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Analysis and reporting of adverse events in randomised controlled trials: a review

Open access
Phillips, Rachel, Hazell, Lorna, Sauzet, Odile, Cornelius, Victoria·2019·BMJ Open

Abstract

Objective: To ascertain contemporary approaches to the collection, reporting and analysis of adverse events (AEs) in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a primary efficacy outcome. Design: A review of clinical trials of drug interventions from four high impact medical journals. Data sources: Electronic contents table of the BMJ , the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) , the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) were searched for reports of original RCTs published between September 2015 and September 2016. Methods: A prepiloted checklist was used and single data extraction was performed by three reviewers with independent check of a randomly sampled subset to verify quality. We extracted data on collection methods, assessment of severity and causality, reporting criteria, analysis methods and presentation of AE data. Results: We identified 184 eligible reports ( BMJ n=3; JAMA n=38, Lancet n=62 and NEJM n=81). Sixty-two per cent reported some form of spontaneous AE collection but only 29% included details of specific prompts used to ascertain AE data. Numbers that withdrew from the trial were well reported (80%), however only 35% of these reported whether withdrawals were due to AEs. Results presented and analysis performed was predominantly on ‘patients with at least one event’ with 84% of studies ignoring repeated events. Despite a lack of power to undertake formal hypothesis testing, 47% performed such tests for binary outcomes. Conclusions: This review highlighted that the collection, reporting and analysis of AE data in clinical trials is inconsistent and RCTs as a source of safety data are underused. Areas to improve include reducing information loss when analysing at patient level and inappropriate practice of underpowered multiple hypothesis testing. Implementation of standard reporting practices could enable a more accurate synthesis of safety data and development of guidance for statistical methodology to assess causality of AEs could facilitate better statistical practice.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024537

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Missing or insufficient reporting of harm-related data is not specific to the probiotic field; similar issues have been reported regarding other interventions.

    “Missing or insufficient reporting of harm-related data is not specific to the probiotic field. Similar issues have been reported regarding other interventions.139–142”

    From Emerging issues in probiotic safety: 2023 perspectives (2023) · cites this paper as [140]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [4]Food and Drug Administration. Attachment B: clinical safety review of an NDA or BLA of the good review practice. Clinical Reveiw Template 2010.
  2. [45]Stephens MD, Talbot JC, Routledge PA The detection of new adverse reactions. 4 edn London: Macmillan Reference, 1998.
  3. [48]Furey A, Bechhofer R Effective graphical analyses of adverse events in DMC reports. Trials Conference: 4th International Clinical Trials Methodology Conference, ICTMC and the 38th Annual Meeting of the Society for Clinical Trials United Kingdom. 2017.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Phillips, R., Hazell, L., Sauzet, O., & Cornelius, V.
Affiliations
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • Drug Safety Research Unit (GB)
  • Bielefeld University (DE)
Corresponding author
Phillips, Rachel
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2019-02
Volume
9
Issue
2
Pages
e024537
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2919004480
Cited by
228
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 5
FWCI
3.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • PUB – Publications at Bielefeld University (Bielefeld University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Research Trainees Coordinating Centre
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
adverse events, randomized controlled trials, adverse event reporting, adverse event analysis, spontaneous adverse event reporting, trial withdrawal, multiple comparisons, patient-level analysis, causality assessment, drug safety
MeSH terms
Drug Therapy, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems, Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review