Cited by 254Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug ReactionsStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Systematic reviews of adverse effects: framework for a structured approach

Open access
Loke, Yoon K, Price, Deirdre, Herxheimer, Andrew, the Cochrane Adverse Effects Methods Group·2007·BMC Medical Research Methodology

Abstract

Background: As every healthcare intervention carries some risk of harm, clinical decision making needs to be supported by a systematic assessment of the balance of benefit to harm. A systematic review that considers only the favourable outcomes of an intervention, without also assessing the adverse effects, can mislead by introducing a bias favouring the intervention. Much of the current guidance on systematic reviews is directed towards the evaluation of effectiveness; but this differs in important ways from the methods used in assessing the safety and tolerability of an intervention. A detailed discussion of why, how and when to include adverse effects in a systematic review, is required. Methods: This discussion paper, which presupposes a basic knowledge of systematic review methodology, was developed by consensus among experienced reviewers, members of the Adverse Effects Subgroup of The Cochrane Collaboration, and supplemented by a consultation of content experts in reviews methodology, as well as those working in drug safety. Results: A logical framework for making decisions in reviews that incorporate adverse effects is provided. We explore situations where a comprehensive investigation of adverse effects is warranted and suggest strategies to identify practicable and clinically useful outcomes. The advantages and disadvantages of including observational and experimental study designs are reviewed. The consequences of including separate studies for intended and unintended effects are explained. Detailed advice is given on designing electronic searches for studies with adverse effects data. Reviewers of adverse effects are given general guidance on the assessment of study bias, data collection, analysis, presentation and the interpretation of harms in a systematic review. Conclusion: Readers need to be able to recognize how strategic choices made in the review process determine what harms are found, and how the findings may affect clinical decisions. Researchers undertaking a systematic review that incorporates adverse effect data should understand the rationale for the suggested methods and be able to implement them in their review.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2288-7-32

Cites

25 of 25 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?

  • The review used the 'broad sweep' approach recommended by the Cochrane Adverse Effects Methods Group.

    “As this is the first systematic review of the literature involving meditation adverse events (MAEs), we utilized the 'broad sweep' approach recommended by the Cochrane Adverse Effects Methods Group (27) in order to gain a general view of the variety of adverse events, as well as attempting a preliminary estimate of their prevalence.”
  • Twenty articles (22%) gave recommendations on the key item "research question", with publication dates between 1997 and 2015 (median year 2009).

    “Twenty articles (22%) gave recommendations on the key item “research question” [29, 30, 35, 36, 38–43, 45–54], with publication dates between 1997 and 2015 (median year of publication 2009).”
  • Sixteen articles (17%) provided recommendations on the key item "protocol development", with publication dates between 1994 and 2015 (median year 2009).

    “Sixteen articles (17%) provided recommendations on the key item “protocol development” (Table 3), [29–44] with publication dates between 1994 and 2015 (median year of publication 2009).”
  • There was some disagreement among the articles whether the research question should be specific (narrowly formulated) or general (broadly formulated).

    “There was some disagreement (Table 4) whether the research question should be specific (narrowly formulated) [51, 53], or general (broadly formulated) [35, 47, 49].”
  • The articles recommended that the protocol should state the objectives, hypotheses to be tested and the rationale of the review, describe eligibility criteria, define the type of studies to be included, and give the reason when including observational studies in the review.

    “The articles recommended that the protocol should state the objectives, hypotheses to be tested and the rationale of the review, [29] and that it should describe eligibility criteria [29, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41], define the type of studies to be included [35, 37, 42, 44], and give the reason when including observational studies in the review [35, 37, 40].”

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

1 of the 26 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Amodiaquine: a systematic review of adverse events. Version 1. WHO

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Loke, Y. K., Price, D., Herxheimer, A., & the Cochrane Adverse Effects Methods Group
Affiliations
  • University of East Anglia (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Cochrane (GB)
Corresponding author
Herxheimer, Andrew
Venue
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published
2007-07-05
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
32-32
ISSN
1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2052762949
Cited by
253
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 11
FWCI
1.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
adverse effects, harm assessment, systematic review methodology, drug safety, benefit-harm balance
MeSH terms
Drug Evaluation, Humans, Research Design, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Databases, Bibliographic, Information Storage and Retrieval, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Risk Assessment, Decision Support Systems, Clinical, Consensus, Medical Subject Headings, 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