Quality of reporting in systematic reviews of adverse events: systematic review

Assignment of adverse event indexing terms in randomized clinical trials involving spinal manipulative therapy: an audit of records in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases

Background

Reporting of adverse events in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is encouraged by the authors of The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. With robust methodological design and adequate reporting, RCTs have the potential to provide useful evidence on the incidence of adverse events associated with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). During a previous investigation, it became apparent that comprehensive search strategies combining text words with indexing terms was not sufficiently sensitive for retrieving records that were known to contain reports on adverse events. The aim of this analysis was to compare the proportion of articles containing data on adverse events associated with SMT that were indexed in MEDLINE and/or EMBASE and the proportion of those that included adverse event-related words in their title or abstract.

Methods

A sample of 140 RCT articles previously identified as containing data on adverse events associated with SMT was used. Articles were checked to determine if: (1) they had been indexed with relevant terms describing adverse events in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases; and (2) they mentioned adverse events (or any related terms) in the title or abstract.

Results

Of the 140 papers, 91% were MEDLINE records, 85% were EMBASE records, 81% were found in both MEDLINE and EMBASE records, and 4% were not in either database. Only 19% mentioned adverse event-related text words in the title or abstract. There was no significant difference between MEDLINE and EMBASE records in the proportion of available papers (p = 0.078). Of the 113 papers that were found in both MEDLINE and EMBASE records, only 3% had adverse event-related indexing terms assigned to them in both databases, while 81% were not assigned an adverse event-related indexing term in either database.

Conclusions

While there was effective indexing of RCTs involving SMT in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, there was a failure of allocation of adverse event indexing terms in both databases. We recommend the development of standardized definitions and reporting tools for adverse events associated with SMT. Adequate reporting of adverse events associated with SMT will facilitate accurate indexing of these types of manuscripts in the databases.

Are child-centric aspects in newborn and child health systematic review and meta-analysis protocols and reports adequately reported?-two systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Evidence suggests that newborn and child health systematic reviews and meta-analyses exhibit poor quality in reporting. The "Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" (PRISMA) and PRISMA-Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklists have been developed to improve the reporting of systematic review results and protocols, respectively. We aimed to evaluate the clarity and transparency in reporting of child-centric items in child health systematic reviews (SRs) and SR protocols and to identify areas where reporting could be strengthened.

METHODS

Two preliminary lists of potential child-centric reporting items were used to examine current reporting. The Cochrane, DARE, MEDLINE, and EMBASE libraries were searched from 2010 to 2014 for systematic reviews that included children. Each report and protocol that met the inclusion criteria had their quality of reporting assessed by their reporting of child-centric items. Quality of reporting was assessed per whether one third, one to two thirds, or more than two thirds of papers complied with potential child-centric potential modifications/extensions to PRISMA and were analyzed by the following: (i) paper type (i.e., report vs. protocol), (ii) publication type (i.e., Cochrane vs. non-Cochrane), and (iii) population type (i.e., child-only vs. mixed populations vs. family/maternal).

RESULTS

Of the 414 eligible articles, 248 reports and 76 protocols were included. In 21 of 24 potential SR reporting items and 13 of 14 potential SR protocol reporting items, less than two thirds of papers met the child-centric reporting item requirements. Mixed population studies displayed significantly poorer reporting in comparison to child-only and family/maternal intervention studies for 11 potential SR reporting items (p < 0.05) and five potential SR protocol items (p < 0.05). When comparing non-Cochrane to Cochrane reports and protocols, five items in both lists were found to perform significantly poorer in non-Cochrane reports (p < 0.05). Significant differences in reporting quality were found in three of 14 items shared between the potential SR reporting items and potential SR protocol reporting items (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Newborn and child health systematic reviews and meta-analyses exhibit incomplete reporting, thereby hindering prudent decision-making by healthcare providers and policy makers. These results provide a rationale for the implementation of child-centric extensions and modifications to current PRISMA and PRISMA-P, such as to improve reporting in this population.

Harms of cervical cancer screening in the United States and the Netherlands

We studied harms related to cervical cancer screening and management of screen-positive women in the United States (US) and the Netherlands. We utilized data from four US integrated health care systems (SEARCH), the US National Health Interview Survey, New Mexico state, the Netherlands national histopathology registry, and included studies on adverse health effects of cervical screening. We compared the number of Papanicolaou (Pap) smear tests, abnormal test results, punch biopsies, treatments, health problems (anxiety, pain, bleeding and discharge) and preterm births associated with excisional treatments. Results were age-standardized to the 2007 US population. Based on SEARCH, an estimated 36 million Pap tests were performed in 2007 for 91 million US women aged 21-65 years, leading to 2.3 million abnormal Pap tests, 1.5 million punch biopsies, 0.3 million treatments for precancerous lesions, 5 thousand preterm births and over 8 million health problems. Under the Netherlands screening practice, fewer Pap tests (58%), abnormal test results (64%), punch biopsies (75%), treatment procedures (40%), preterm births (60%) and health problems (63%) would have occurred. The SEARCH data did not differ much from other US data for 2007 or from more recent data up to 2013. Thus compared to the less intensive screening practice in the Netherlands, US practice of cervical cancer screening may have resulted in two- to threefold higher harms, while the effects on cervical cancer incidence and mortality are similar. The results are also of high relevance in making recommendations for HPV screening. Systematic collection of harms data is needed for monitoring and for better incorporation of harms in making screening recommendations.

Incidence of Antipsychotic-Associated Side Effects: Impact of Clinician Versus Patient Ratings and Change Versus Absolute Scores

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare (1) the detection rates of antipsychotic-associated side effects between clinician and patient ratings and (2) differences as a function of change and absolute score definitions.

METHODS

Data from phase 1 of the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (N = 1460) were analyzed. In this trial, 18 adverse events were systematically and concurrently assessed by clinicians and patients using a 4-point severity scale ranging from 0 (absent) to 3 (severe). The incidence of antipsychotic-associated side effects was calculated according to 2 definitions: change score (ie, higher score on the scale versus baseline) and absolute score (a score of 2 or 3 on the scale). In addition, patient and clinician concurrent detection rates were examined.

RESULTS

The differences in incidence of antipsychotic-associated side effects between clinician and patient ratings were as small as 5.7% across the 2 definitions. The incidence of all side effects across clinician and patient ratings was approximately 2 times higher when using the change versus absolute score definition. Among the side effects detected by patients, 11 side effects were identified more frequently by clinicians, with 14.3% to 30.2% differences when using the change versus absolute score definition. Conversely, there was no difference of 10% or greater in patient or clinician concurrent detection rate on any item when using the absolute versus change score definition.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that patient ratings are in line with clinician ratings and that the change score definition may be superior for the assessment of antipsychotic-associated side effects in clinical studies.

Risk of Herpes Zoster in Individuals on Biologics, Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs, and/or Corticosteroids for Autoimmune Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Studies examining the risk of herpes zoster (HZ) associated with immunosuppressants, such as biologics, nonbiological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (nbDMARDs), or corticosteroids, have generated conflicting results.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search from January 1946 to February 2016. Search terms related to HZ, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, systemic lupus erythematous, or inflammatory bowel disease, biologics, nbDMARDS, and corticosteroids were used. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting associations between immunosuppressants and HZ outcomes in adults. For RCTs, we used the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effects model to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for HZ risk. For observational studies, adjusted ORs were pooled separately using random-effects inverse variance models.

RESULTS

Data were pooled from 40 eligible RCTs (20136 patients) and 19 observational studies (810939 patients). Biologics were associated with a greater risk of HZ than control (RCTs: OR = 1.71, 95% CI = 1.11-2.64; observational studies: OR = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.39-1.81). In RCTs, the OR of non-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers was 2.19 (95% CI 1.20-4.02), but that of TNF blockers was not significantly different from control. Increased risks of HZ with nbDMARDs (OR = 1.21; 95% CI = 1.15-1.28) and corticosteroids (OR = 1.73; 95% CI = 1.57-1.89) were observed in observational studies, but few RCTs examined these comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

Immunocompromised patients receiving biologics were associated with an increased risk of HZ. The risk is also increased with corticosteroids and nbDMARDs. These findings raise the issue of prophylaxis with zoster vaccine in patients initiating immunosuppressive therapy for autoimmune diseases.

Impact of librarians on reporting of the literature searching component of pediatric systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

A critical element in conducting a systematic review is the identification of studies. To date, very little empirical evidence has been reported on whether the presence of a librarian or information professional can contribute to the quality of the final product. The goal of this study was to compare the reporting rigor of the literature searching component of systematic reviews with and without the help of a librarian.

METHOD

Systematic reviews published from 2002 to 2011 in the twenty highest impact factor pediatrics journals were collected from MEDLINE. Corresponding authors were contacted via an email survey to determine if a librarian was involved, the role that the librarian played, and functions that the librarian performed. The reviews were scored independently by two reviewers using a fifteen-item checklist.

RESULTS

There were 186 reviews that met the inclusion criteria, and 44% of the authors indicated the involvement of a librarian in conducting the systematic review. With the presence of a librarian as coauthor or team member, the mean checklist score was 8.40, compared to 6.61 (p<0.001) for reviews without a librarian.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings indicate that having a librarian as a coauthor or team member correlates with a higher score in the literature searching component of systematic reviews.

Reproducibility of Search Strategies Is Poor in Systematic Reviews Published in High-Impact Pediatrics, Cardiology and Surgery Journals: A Cross-Sectional Study

Background

A high-quality search strategy is considered an essential component of systematic reviews but many do not contain reproducible search strategies. It is unclear if low reproducibility spans medical disciplines, is affected by librarian/search specialist involvement or has improved with increased awareness of reporting guidelines.

Objectives

To examine the reporting of search strategies in systematic reviews published in Pediatrics, Surgery or Cardiology journals in 2012 and determine rates and predictors of including a reproducible search strategy.

Methods

We identified all systematic reviews published in 2012 in the ten highest impact factor journals in Pediatrics, Surgery and Cardiology. Each search strategy was coded to indicate what elements were reported and whether the overall search was reproducible. Reporting and reproducibility rates were compared across disciplines and we measured the influence of librarian/search specialist involvement, discipline or endorsement of a reporting guideline on search reproducibility.

Results

272 articles from 25 journals were included. Reporting of search elements ranged widely from 91% of articles naming search terms to 33% providing a full search strategy and 22% indicating the date the search was executed. Only 22% of articles provided at least one reproducible search strategy and 13% provided a reproducible strategy for all databases searched in the article. Librarians or search specialists were reported as involved in 17% of articles. There were strong disciplinary differences on the reporting of search elements. In the multivariable analysis, only discipline (Pediatrics) was a significant predictor of the inclusion of a reproducible search strategy.

Conclusions

Despite recommendations to report full, reproducible search strategies, many articles still do not. In addition, authors often report a single strategy as covering all databases searched, further decreasing reproducibility. Further research is needed to determine how disciplinary culture may encourage reproducibility and the role that journal editors and peer reviewers could play.

The reporting of adverse events following spinal manipulation in randomized clinical trials-a systematic review

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is commonly used to treat spinal disorders. Although clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of SMT in the treatment of neck and back disorders, concerns exist about the nature and incidence of adverse events associated with the intervention. Comprehensive reporting of adverse events in clinical trials could allow for accurate incidence estimates through meta-analysis. However, it is not clear if randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that involve SMT are currently reporting adverse events adequately.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to describe the extent of adverse events reporting in published RCTs involving SMT, and to determine whether the quality of reporting has improved since publication of the 2010 Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a systematic literature review.

METHODS

The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for RCTs involving SMT. Domains of interest included classifications of adverse events, completeness of adverse events reporting, nomenclature used to describe the events, methodological quality of the study, and details of the publishing journal. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Frequencies and proportions of trials reporting on each of the specified domains above were calculated. Differences in proportions between pre- and post-CONSORT trials were calculated with 95% confidence intervals using standard methods, and statistical comparisons were analyzed using tests for equality of proportions with continuity correction. There was no funding obtained for this study. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

RESULTS

Of 7,398 records identified in the electronic searches, 368 articles were eligible for inclusion in this review. Adverse events were reported in 140 (38.0%) articles. There was a significant increase in the reporting of adverse events post-CONSORT (p=.001). There were two major adverse events reported (0.3%). Only 22 articles (15.7%) reported on adverse events in the abstract. There were no differences in reporting of adverse events post-CONSORT for any of the chosen parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there has been an increase in reporting adverse events since the introduction of the 2010 CONSORT guidelines, the current level should be seen as inadequate and unacceptable. We recommend that authors adhere to the CONSORT statement when reporting adverse events associated with RCTs that involve SMT.

The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses

POLICY POINTS

Currently, there is massive production of unnecessary, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Instead of promoting evidence-based medicine and health care, these instruments often serve mostly as easily produced publishable units or marketing tools. Suboptimal systematic reviews and meta-analyses can be harmful given the major prestige and influence these types of studies have acquired. The publication of systematic reviews and meta-analyses should be realigned to remove biases and vested interests and to integrate them better with the primary production of evidence.

CONTEXT

Currently, most systematic reviews and meta-analyses are done retrospectively with fragmented published information. This article aims to explore the growth of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses and to estimate how often they are redundant, misleading, or serving conflicted interests.

METHODS

Data included information from PubMed surveys and from empirical evaluations of meta-analyses.

FINDINGS

Publication of systematic reviews and meta-analyses has increased rapidly. In the period January 1, 1986, to December 4, 2015, PubMed tags 266,782 items as "systematic reviews" and 58,611 as "meta-analyses." Annual publications between 1991 and 2014 increased 2,728% for systematic reviews and 2,635% for meta-analyses versus only 153% for all PubMed-indexed items. Currently, probably more systematic reviews of trials than new randomized trials are published annually. Most topics addressed by meta-analyses of randomized trials have overlapping, redundant meta-analyses; same-topic meta-analyses may exceed 20 sometimes. Some fields produce massive numbers of meta-analyses; for example, 185 meta-analyses of antidepressants for depression were published between 2007 and 2014. These meta-analyses are often produced either by industry employees or by authors with industry ties and results are aligned with sponsor interests. China has rapidly become the most prolific producer of English-language, PubMed-indexed meta-analyses. The most massive presence of Chinese meta-analyses is on genetic associations (63% of global production in 2014), where almost all results are misleading since they combine fragmented information from mostly abandoned era of candidate genes. Furthermore, many contracting companies working on evidence synthesis receive industry contracts to produce meta-analyses, many of which probably remain unpublished. Many other meta-analyses have serious flaws. Of the remaining, most have weak or insufficient evidence to inform decision making. Few systematic reviews and meta-analyses are both non-misleading and useful.

CONCLUSIONS

The production of systematic reviews and meta-analyses has reached epidemic proportions. Possibly, the large majority of produced systematic reviews and meta-analyses are unnecessary, misleading, and/or conflicted.

Testing the usefulness of the number needed to treat to be harmed (NNTH) in benefit-risk evaluations: case study with medicines withdrawn from the European market due to safety reasons

OBJECTIVE

To explore the usefulness of number needed to treat to be harmed (NNTH), in benefit-risk assessments, by studying the agreement between NNTH values and withdrawals of medicines from European market due to safety reasons.

METHODS

Medicines with data from longitudinal studies were included. Studies were identified from European Medicines Agency's Reports. Meta-analyses were performed to pool odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence-intervals (CI). Published control event rates were applied to ORs to calculate NNTHs (95%CI) for selected adverse events.

RESULTS

NNTH (95%CI) decreased from pre- to post-marketing for the eight medicines included: peripheral neuropathy (∞ vs. 12[non-significant; NS] with almitrine; heart valve disease with benfluorex (∞ vs. NNTH ranging from 7[4-13] to 7[5-9]); myopathy (-4096[NS] vs. 797[421-1690]), new-onset diabetes (113[NS] vs. 390[425-778]), bleeding (∞ vs. 517[317-1153]), and infection (∞ vs. 253[164-463]) with niacin-laropiprant; psychiatric disorders (12[7-34] vs. 9[5-24]) with rimonabant; myocardial infarction (MI) [-1305 vs. 270[89-4362]) with rofecoxib; MI (-510 vs. NNTH ranging from 152[55-4003] to 568[344-1350]) with rosiglitazone; cardiovascular events (∞ vs. 245[129-1318]) with sibutramine; and liver injury (∞ vs. 5957[NS]) with ximelagatran.

CONCLUSION

NNTH have potential of use as a supportive tool in benefit-risk re-evaluations of medicines and may help regulators to making decisions on drug safety.

Effects of Long-Term Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin on Fractures and Bone Density in Non-Pregnant Adults: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Adults who require long-term anticoagulation with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) such as cancer patients or the elderly may be at increased risk of fractures.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects of LMWH therapy of at least 3 months' duration on fractures and bone mineral density (BMD) in non-pregnant adult populations.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE), conferences and bibliographies until June 2015 and included comparative studies in non-pregnant adult populations that examined the effects of LMWH (≥3 months) on fractures and BMD. We synthesized evidence qualitatively and used random-effects meta-analysis to quantify the effect of LMWH on fractures.

RESULTS

Sixteen articles reporting 14 studies were included: 10 clinical trials (n = 4865 participants) and four observational cohort studies (3 prospective, n = 221; 1 retrospective, n = 30). BMD and fractures were secondary outcomes in the majority of trials, while they were primary outcomes in the majority of observational studies. In participants with venous thromboembolism and underlying cardiovascular disease or cancer (5 RCTs, n = 2280), LMWH for 3-6 months did not increase the relative risk of all fractures at 6-12 months compared to unfractionated heparin, oral vitamin K antagonists or placebo [pooled risk ratio (RR) = 0.58, 95 % CI: 0.23-1.43; I(2) = 12.5 %]. No statistically significant increase in the risk of fractures at 6-12 months was found for cancer patients (RR = 1.08, 95 % CI: 0.31-3.75; I(2) = 4.4 %). Based on the data from two prospective cohort studies (n = 166), LMWH for 3-24 months decreased mean BMD by 2.8-4.8 % (depending on the BMD site) compared to mean BMD decreases of 1.2-2.5 % with oral vitamin K antagonists.

CONCLUSIONS

LMWH for 3-6 months may not increase the risk of fractures, but longer exposure for up to 24 months may adversely affect BMD. Clinicians should consider monitoring BMD in adults on long-term LMWH who are at increased risk of bone loss or fracture.

Meta-analyses including non-randomized studies of therapeutic interventions: a methodological review

Background

There is an increasing number of meta-analyses including data from non-randomized studies for therapeutic evaluation. We aimed to systematically assess the methods used in meta-analyses including non-randomized studies evaluating therapeutic interventions.

Methods

For this methodological review, we searched MEDLINE via PubMed, from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 for meta-analyses including at least one non-randomized study evaluating therapeutic interventions. Etiological assessments and meta-analyses with no comparison group were excluded. Two reviewers independently assessed the general characteristics and key methodological components of the systematic review process and meta-analysis methods.

Results

One hundred eighty eight meta-analyses were selected: 119 included both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI) and 69 only NRSI. Half of the meta-analyses (n = 92, 49 %) evaluated non-pharmacological interventions. “Grey literature” was searched for 72 meta-analyses (38 %). An assessment of methodological quality or risk of bias was reported in 135 meta-analyses (72 %) but this assessment considered the risk of confounding bias in only 33 meta-analyses (18 %). In 130 meta-analyses (69 %), the design of each NRSI was not clearly specified. In 131 (70 %), whether crude or adjusted estimates of treatment effect for NRSI were combined was unclear or not reported. Heterogeneity across studies was assessed in 182 meta-analyses (97 %) and further explored in 157 (84 %). Reporting bias was assessed in 127 (68 %).

Conclusions

Some key methodological components of the systematic review process—search for grey literature, description of the type of NRSI included, assessment of risk of confounding bias and reporting of whether crude or adjusted estimates were combined—are not adequately carried out or reported in meta-analyses including NRSI.

It is 2015: What are the best diagnostic and treatment options for Ménière’s disease?

Ménière’s disease (MD) is a common cause of recurrent vertigo. Its pathophysiology is still unclear and controversial. The most common histological finding in postmortem temporal bone studies of patients is endolymphatic hydrops (EH). However, not all cases of hydrops are associated with MD and it may represent the end point of various etiologies. The diagnostic criteria for MD have undergone changes during the past few decades. A recent collaboration among specialty societies in United States, Europe and Japan has given rise to a new set of guidelines for the diagnosis and classification of MD. The aim is to develop international consensus criteria for MD that would help improve the quality of data collected from patients. The diagnosis of MD can be difficult in some cases as there is no gold standard for testing. Previous use of audiometric data and electrocochleography are poorly sensitive as screening tools. Recently magnetic resonance imaging as a diagnostic tool for identifying EH has gained popularity in Asia and Europe. Vestibular evoked myogenic potentials are also used but lack specificity. Finally, the treatment for MD has improved with the introduction of intratympanic treatments with steroids and gentamicin as well as less invasive treatment with the Meniett device.

Nurse-Led Medicines' Monitoring for Patients with Dementia in Care Homes: A Pragmatic Cohort Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomised Trial

BACKGROUND

People with dementia are susceptible to adverse drug reactions (ADRs). However, they are not always closely monitored for potential problems relating to their medicines: structured nurse-led ADR Profiles have the potential to address this care gap. We aimed to assess the number and nature of clinical problems identified and addressed and changes in prescribing following introduction of nurse-led medicines' monitoring.

DESIGN

Pragmatic cohort stepped-wedge cluster Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) of structured nurse-led medicines' monitoring versus usual care.

SETTING

Five UK private sector care homes.

PARTICIPANTS

41 service users, taking at least one antipsychotic, antidepressant or anti-epileptic medicine.

INTERVENTION

Nurses completed the West Wales ADR (WWADR) Profile for Mental Health Medicines with each participant according to trial step.

OUTCOMES

Problems addressed and changes in medicines prescribed.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Information was collected from participants' notes before randomisation and after each of five monthly trial steps. The impact of the Profile on problems found, actions taken and reduction in mental health medicines was explored in multivariate analyses, accounting for data collection step and site.

RESULTS

Five of 10 sites and 43 of 49 service users approached participated. Profile administration increased the number of problems addressed from a mean of 6.02 [SD 2.92] to 9.86 [4.48], effect size 3.84, 95% CI 2.57-4.11, P <0.001. For example, pain was more likely to be treated (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] 3.84, 1.78-8.30), and more patients attended dentists and opticians (aOR 52.76 [11.80-235.90] and 5.12 [1.45-18.03] respectively). Profile use was associated with reduction in mental health medicines (aOR 4.45, 1.15-17.22).

CONCLUSION

The WWADR Profile for Mental Health Medicines can improve the quality and safety of care, and warrants further investigation as a strategy to mitigate the known adverse effects of prescribed medicines.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN 48133332.

Adverse events associated with single dose oral analgesics for acute postoperative pain in adults - an overview of Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a Cochrane overview published in Issue 9, 2011; that overview considered both efficacy and adverse events. This overview considers adverse events, with efficacy dealt with in a separate overview.Thirty-nine Cochrane reviews of randomised trials have examined the adverse events associated with individual drug interventions in acute postoperative pain. This overview brings together the results of those individual reviews.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of adverse event rates associated with single-dose oral analgesics, compared with placebo, for acute postoperative pain in adults.

METHODS

We identified systematic reviews in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on The Cochrane Library through a simple search strategy. All reviews were overseen by a single review group. We extracted information related to participants experiencing any adverse event, and reports of serious adverse events, and deaths from the individual reviews.

MAIN RESULTS

Information was available from 39 Cochrane reviews for 41 different analgesics or analgesic combinations (51 drug/dose/formulations) tested in single oral doses in participants with moderate or severe postoperative pain. This involved around 350 unique studies involving about 35,000 participants. Most studies involved younger participants with pain following removal of molar teeth.For most nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), paracetamol, and combinations not containing opioids, there were few examples where participants experienced significantly more or fewer adverse events than with placebo. For aspirin 1000 mg and diflunisal 1000 mg, opioids, or fixed-dose combination drugs containing opioids, participants typically experienced significantly more adverse events than with placebo. Studies of combinations of ibuprofen and paracetamol reported significantly fewer adverse events.Serious adverse events were rare, occurring a rate of about 1 in 3200 participants.Most reviews did not report specific adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite ongoing problems with the measurement, recording, and reporting of adverse events in clinical trials and in systematic reviews, the large amount of information available for single oral doses of analgesics provides evidence that adverse events rates are generally similar with active drug and placebo in these circumstances, except at higher doses of some drugs, and in combinations including opioids.

Comparison of tolerability and adverse symptoms in oxcarbazepine and carbamazepine in the treatment of trigeminal neuralgia and neuralgiform headaches using the Liverpool Adverse Events Profile (AEP)

Background

Adverse effects of drugs are poorly reported in the literature . The aim of this study was to examine the frequency of the adverse events of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), in particular carbamazepine (CBZ) and oxcarbazepine (OXC) in patients with neuralgiform pain using the psychometrically tested Liverpool Adverse Events Profile (AEP) and provide clinicians with guidance as to when to change management.

Methods

The study was conducted as a clinical prospective observational exploratory survey of 161 patients with idiopathic trigeminal neuralgia and its variants of whom 79 were on montherapy who attended a specialist clinic in a London teaching hospital over a period of 2 years. At each consultation they completed the AEP questionnaire which provides scores of 19–76 with toxic levels being considered as scores >45.

Results

The most common significant side effects were: tiredness 31.3 %, sleepiness 18.2 %, memory problems 22.7 %, disturbed sleep 14.1 %, difficulty concentrating and unsteadiness 11.6 %. Females reported significantly more side effects than males. Potential toxic dose for females is approximately 1200 mg of OXC and 800 mg of CBZ and1800mg of OXC and 1200 mg of CBZ for males.

Conclusions

CBZ and OXC are associated with cognitive impairment. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic differences are likely to be the reason for gender differences in reporting side effects. Potentially, females need to be prescribed lower dosages in view of their tendency to reach toxic levels at lower dosages.

Side effects associated with AED could be a major reason for changing drugs or to consider a referral for surgical management.

Comparison of serious adverse events posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and published in corresponding journal articles

BACKGROUND

The reporting of serious adverse events (SAEs) in clinical trials is crucial to assess the balance between benefits and risks. For trials with serious adverse events posted at ClinicalTrials.gov, we assessed the consistency between SAEs posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and those published in corresponding journal articles.

METHODS

All records from ClinicalTrials.gov up to February 2014 were automatically exported in XML format. Among these, we identified all phase III or IV randomized controlled trials with at least one SAE posted. For a random sample of 300 of these trials, we searched for corresponding publications using MEDLINE via PubMed and extracted safety results from the articles.

RESULTS

Among the sample of 300 trials with SAEs posted at ClinicalTrials.gov, 78 (26%) did not have a corresponding publication, and 20 (7%) had a publication that did not match the ClinicalTrials.gov record. For the 202 remaining trials, 26 published articles (13%) did not mention SAEs, 4 (2%) reported no SAEs, and 33 (16%) did not report the total number of SAEs per treatment group. Among the remaining 139 trials, for 44 (32%), the number of SAEs per group published did not match those posted at ClinicalTrials.gov. For 31 trials, the number of SAEs was greater at ClinicalTrials.gov than in the published article, with a difference ≥30 % for at least one group for 21. Only 33 trials (11%) had a publication reporting matching numbers of SAE and describing the type of SAE.

CONCLUSIONS

Many trials with SAEs posted at ClinicalTrials.gov are not yet published, omit the reporting of these SAEs in corresponding publications, or report a discrepant number of SAEs as compared with ClinicalTrials.gov. These results underline the need to consult ClinicalTrials.gov for more information on serious harms.

The psychological harms of screening: the evidence we have versus the evidence we need

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews for the US Preventive Services Task Force have found less high-quality evidence on psychological than physical harms of screening. To understand the extent of evidence on psychological harms, we developed an evidence map that quantifies the distribution of evidence on psychological harms for five adult screening services. We also note gaps in the literature and make recommendations for future research.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, PsycInfo, and CINAHL from 2002 to 2012 for studies of any research design that assessed the burden or frequency of psychological harm associated with screening for: prostate and lung cancers, osteoporosis, abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and carotid artery stenosis (CAS). We also searched for studies that estimated rates of overdiagnosis (a marker for unnecessary labeling). We included studies published in English and used dual independent review to determine study inclusion and to abstract information on design, types of measures, and outcomes assessed.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight studies assessing psychological harms met our criteria; 62 % concerned prostate cancer and 16 % concerned lung cancer. Evidence was scant for the other three screening services. Overall, only about one-third of the studies used both longitudinal designs and condition-specific measures (ranging from 0 % for AAA and CAS to 78 % for lung cancer), which can provide the best evidence on harms. An additional 20 studies that met our criteria estimated rates of overdiagnosis in lung or prostate cancer. No studies estimated overdiagnosis for the non-cancer screening services.

DISCUSSION

Evidence on psychological harms varied markedly across screening services in number and potential usefulness. We found important evidence gaps for all five screening services. The evidence that we have on psychological harms is inadequate in number of studies and in research design and measures. Future research should focus more clearly on the evidence that we need for decision making about screening.

Common harms from amoxicillin: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials for any indication

BACKGROUND

When prescribing antibiotics for common indications, clinicians need information about both harms and benefits, information that is currently available only from observational studies. We quantified the common harms of the most frequently prescribed antibiotic, amoxicillin, from randomized placebo-controlled trials.

METHODS

For this systematic review, we searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, without language restriction, for any randomized, participant-blinded, placebo-controlled trials of amoxicillin or amoxicillin-clavulanic acid for any indication, in any setting. Our main outcome was any reported adverse event.

RESULTS

Of 730 studies identified, we included 45 trials: 27 involving amoxicillin, 17 involving amoxicillin-clavulanic acid and 1 involving both. The indications for antibiotic therapy were variable. The risk of bias was low, although only 25 trials provided data suitable for assessment of harms, which suggested under-reporting. Diarrhea was attributed to amoxicillin only in the form of amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (Peto odds ratio [OR] 3.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.23-4.87). The OR for candidiasis (3 trials) was significantly higher (OR 7.77, 95% CI 2.23-27.11). Rashes, nausea, itching, vomiting and abnormal results on liver function tests were not significantly increased. The results were not altered by sensitivity analyses, nor did funnel plots suggest publication bias. The number of courses of antibiotics needed to harm was 10 (95% CI 6-17) for diarrhea with amoxicillin-clavulanic acid and 27 (95% CI 24-42) for candidiasis with amoxicillin (with or without clavulanic acid).

INTERPRETATION

Diarrhea was caused by use of amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, and candidiasis was caused by both amoxicillin and amoxicillin-clavulanic acid. Harms were poorly reported in most trials, and their true incidence may have been higher than reported. Nevertheless, these rates of common harms associated with amoxicillin therapy may inform decisions by helping clinicians to balance harms against benefits.

Mesh sacrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review outcomes after mesh sacrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repairs in women with apical prolapse.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov through June 4, 2012.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

For anatomic and functional analyses, we included studies comparing mesh sacrocolpopexy to native tissue vaginal repairs with at least 6 months follow-up. The primary outcome was anatomic "success" after surgery. Secondary outcomes were reoperation and symptom outcomes. We included large case series and comparative studies with shorter follow-up to increase power for adverse event analyses.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Evidence quality was assessed with the Grades for Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Meta-analyses were performed when at least three studies reported the same outcome. We included 13 comparative studies for anatomic success, reoperation, and symptom outcomes. Moderate-quality evidence supports improved anatomic outcomes after mesh sacrocolpopexy; very low-quality evidence shows no differences in reoperation between sacrocolpopexy and native tissue vaginal repairs. Evidence was insufficient regarding which procedures result in improved bladder or bowel symptoms. Low-quality evidence showed no differences in postoperative sexual function. Adverse event data were compiled and meta-analyzed from 79 studies. When including larger noncomparative studies, ileus or small bowel obstruction (2.7% compared with 0.2%, P<.01), mesh or suture complications (4.2% compared with 0.4%, P<.01), and thromboembolic phenomena (0.6% compared with 0.1%, P=.03) were more common after mesh sacrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repairs.

CONCLUSION

When anatomic durability is a priority, we suggest that mesh sacrocolpopexy may be the preferred surgical option. When minimizing adverse events or reoperation is the priority, there is no strong evidence supporting one approach over the other.

Selective reporting bias of harm outcomes within studies: findings from a cohort of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

To determine the extent and nature of selective non-reporting of harm outcomes in clinical studies that were eligible for inclusion in a cohort of systematic reviews.

DESIGN

Cohort study of systematic reviews from two databases.

SETTING

Outcome reporting bias in trials for harm outcomes (ORBIT II) in systematic reviews from the Cochrane Library and a separate cohort of systematic reviews of adverse events.

PARTICIPANTS

92 systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies published in the Cochrane Library between issue 9, 2012 and issue 2, 2013 (Cochrane cohort) and 230 systematic reviews published between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2011 in other publications, synthesising data on harm outcomes (adverse event cohort).

METHODS

A 13 point classification system for missing outcome data on harm was developed and applied to the studies.

RESULTS

86% (79/92) of reviews in the Cochrane cohort did not include full data from the main harm outcome of interest of each review for all of the eligible studies included within that review; 76% (173/230) for the adverse event cohort. Overall, the single primary harm outcome was inadequately reported in 76% (705/931) of the studies included in the 92 reviews from the Cochrane cohort and not reported in 47% (4159/8837) of the 230 reviews in the adverse event cohort. In a sample of primary studies not reporting on the single primary harm outcome in the review, scrutiny of the study publication revealed that outcome reporting bias was suspected in nearly two thirds (63%, 248/393).

CONCLUSIONS

The number of reviews suspected of outcome reporting bias as a result of missing or partially reported harm related outcomes from at least one eligible study is high. The declaration of important harms and the quality of the reporting of harm outcomes must be improved in both primary studies and systematic reviews.

Compensation claims for chiropractic in Denmark and Norway 2004-2012

Background

Adverse events are commonly observed in all parts of health care and have been reported extensively following manual therapy, including chiropractic. The majority of reported adverse events following chiropractic care are mild, transitory and self-limiting. However, little is known about patient filed compensation claims related to the chiropractic consultation process. The aim of this study was to describe claims reported to the Danish Patient Compensation Association and the Norwegian System of Compensation to Patients related to chiropractic from 2004 to 2012.

Methods

All finalized compensation claims involving chiropractors reported to one of the two associations between 2004 and 2012 were assessed for age, gender, type of complaint, decisions and appeals. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the study population.

Results

338 claims were registered in Denmark and Norway between 2004 and 2012 of which 300 were included in the analysis. 41 (13.7%) were approved for financial compensation. The most frequent complaints were worsening of symptoms following treatment (n = 91, 30.3%), alleged disk herniations (n = 57, 19%) and cases with delayed referral (n = 46, 15.3%). A total financial payment of €2,305,757 (median payment €7,730) were distributed among the forty-one cases with complaints relating to a few cases of cervical artery dissection (n = 11, 5.7%) accounting for 88.7% of the total amount.

Conclusion

Chiropractors in Denmark and Norway received approximately one compensation claim per 100.000 consultations. The approval rate was low across the majority of complaint categories and lower than the approval rates for general practioners and physiotherapists. Many claims can probably be prevented if chiropractors would prioritize informing patients about the normal course of their complaint and normal benign reactions to treatment.

How good is "evidence" from clinical studies of drug effects and why might such evidence fail in the prediction of the clinical utility of drugs?

Promising evidence from clinical studies of drug effects does not always translate to improvements in patient outcomes. In this review, we discuss why early evidence is often ill suited to the task of predicting the clinical utility of drugs. The current gap between initially described drug effects and their subsequent clinical utility results from deficits in the design, conduct, analysis, reporting, and synthesis of clinical studies-often creating conditions that generate favorable, but ultimately incorrect, conclusions regarding drug effects. There are potential solutions that could improve the relevance of clinical evidence in predicting the real-world effectiveness of drugs. What is needed is a new emphasis on clinical utility, with nonconflicted entities playing a greater role in the generation, synthesis, and interpretation of clinical evidence. Clinical studies should adopt strong design features, reflect clinical practice, and evaluate outcomes and comparisons that are meaningful to patients. Transformative changes to the research agenda may generate more meaningful and accurate evidence on drug effects to guide clinical decision making.

Drug development: how academia, industry and authorities interact

Unfortunately, abundant examples could be given of pitfalls in the current drug development paradigm-including in the design, conduct and evaluation of phase III clinical trials. This article discusses issues of particular relevance to clinical trials in nephrology, including the inappropriate use of placebo, publication of reports that emphasize potential treatment benefits over adverse reactions, the sometimes dubious impartiality of independent guidelines, and inadequate recruitment of elderly patients. This Perspectives article aims to highlight and summarize the flaws in the current drug development process, while suggesting a way forward that equally satisfies the requirements of academia, patients and the pharmaceutical industry. We suggest improvements to the drug development process and related legislation that intend to balance public needs with commercial aims and ensure effective drug evaluation by regulatory authorities.

Long-acting beta-agonists plus inhaled corticosteroids safety: a systematic review and meta-analysis of non-randomized studies

Background

Although several systematic reviews investigated the safety of long-acting beta–agonists (LABAs) in asthma, they mainly addressed randomized clinical trials while evidence from non-randomized studies has been mostly neglected. We aim to assess the risk of serious adverse events in adults and children with asthma treated with LABAs and Inhaled Corticosteroids (ICs), compared to patients treated only with ICs, from published non-randomized studies.

Methods

The protocol registration number was CRD42012003387 (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/Prospero). Literature search for articles published since 1990 was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Two authors selected studies independently for inclusion and extracted the data. A third reviewer resolved discrepancies. To assess the risk of serious adverse events, meta-analyses were performed calculating odds ratio summary estimators using random effect models when heterogeneity was found, and fixed effect models otherwise.

Results

Of 4,415 candidate articles, 1,759 abstracts were reviewed and 220 articles were fully read. Finally, 19 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most of them were retrospective observational cohorts. Sample sizes varied from 50 to 514,216. The meta-analyses performed (69,939-624,303 participants according to the outcome considered) showed that odds ratio of the LABAs and ICs combined treatment when compared with ICs alone was: 0.88 (95% CI 0.69-1.12) for asthma-related hospitalization; 0.75 (95% CI 0.66-0.84) for asthma-related emergency visits; 1.02 (95% CI 0.94-1.10) for systemic corticosteroids; and 0.95 (95% CI 0.9-1.0) for the combined outcome.

Conclusions

Evidence from observational studies shows that the combined treatment of LABAs and ICs is not associated with a higher risk of serious adverse events, compared to ICs alone. Major gaps identified were prospective design, paediatric population and inclusion of mortality as a primary outcome.

Interventions to improve safe and effective medicines use by consumers: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Many systematic reviews exist on interventions to improve safe and effective medicines use by consumers, but research is distributed across diseases, populations and settings. The scope and focus of such reviews also vary widely, creating challenges for decision-makers seeking to inform decisions by using the evidence on consumers' medicines use.This is an update of a 2011 overview of systematic reviews, which synthesises the evidence, irrespective of disease, medicine type, population or setting, on the effectiveness of interventions to improve consumers' medicines use.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions which target healthcare consumers to promote safe and effective medicines use, by synthesising review-level evidence.

METHODS

SEARCH METHODS

We included systematic reviews published on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects. We identified relevant reviews by handsearching databases from their start dates to March 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We screened and ranked reviews based on relevance to consumers' medicines use, using criteria developed for this overview.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standardised forms to extract data, and assessed reviews for methodological quality using the AMSTAR tool. We used standardised language to summarise results within and across reviews; and gave bottom-line statements about intervention effectiveness. Two review authors screened and selected reviews, and extracted and analysed data. We used a taxonomy of interventions to categorise reviews and guide syntheses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 75 systematic reviews of varied methodological quality. Reviews assessed interventions with diverse aims including support for behaviour change, risk minimisation and skills acquisition. No reviews aimed to promote systems-level consumer participation in medicines-related activities. Medicines adherence was the most frequently-reported outcome, but others such as knowledge, clinical and service-use outcomes were also reported. Adverse events were less commonly identified, while those associated with the interventions themselves, or costs, were rarely reported.Looking across reviews, for most outcomes, medicines self-monitoring and self-management programmes appear generally effective to improve medicines use, adherence, adverse events and clinical outcomes; and to reduce mortality in people self-managing antithrombotic therapy. However, some participants were unable to complete these interventions, suggesting they may not be suitable for everyone.Other promising interventions to improve adherence and other key medicines-use outcomes, which require further investigation to be more certain of their effects, include:· simplified dosing regimens: with positive effects on adherence;· interventions involving pharmacists in medicines management, such as medicines reviews (with positive effects on adherence and use, medicines problems and clinical outcomes) and pharmaceutical care services (consultation between pharmacist and patient to resolve medicines problems, develop a care plan and provide follow-up; with positive effects on adherence and knowledge).Several other strategies showed some positive effects, particularly relating to adherence, and other outcomes, but their effects were less consistent overall and so need further study. These included:· delayed antibiotic prescriptions: effective to decrease antibiotic use but with mixed effects on clinical outcomes, adverse effects and satisfaction;· practical strategies like reminders, cues and/or organisers, reminder packaging and material incentives: with positive, although somewhat mixed effects on adherence;· education delivered with self-management skills training, counselling, support, training or enhanced follow-up; information and counselling delivered together; or education/information as part of pharmacist-delivered packages of care: with positive effects on adherence, medicines use, clinical outcomes and knowledge, but with mixed effects in some studies;· financial incentives: with positive, but mixed, effects on adherence.Several strategies also showed promise in promoting immunisation uptake, but require further study to be more certain of their effects. These included organisational interventions; reminders and recall; financial incentives; home visits; free vaccination; lay health worker interventions; and facilitators working with physicians to promote immunisation uptake. Education and/or information strategies also showed some positive but even less consistent effects on immunisation uptake, and need further assessment of effectiveness and investigation of heterogeneity.There are many different potential pathways through which consumers' use of medicines could be targeted to improve outcomes, and simple interventions may be as effective as complex strategies. However, no single intervention assessed was effective to improve all medicines-use outcomes across all diseases, medicines, populations or settings.Even where interventions showed promise, the assembled evidence often only provided part of the picture: for example, simplified dosing regimens seem effective for improving adherence, but there is not yet sufficient information to identify an optimal regimen.In some instances interventions appear ineffective: for example, the evidence suggests that directly observed therapy may be generally ineffective for improving treatment completion, adherence or clinical outcomes.In other cases, interventions may have variable effects across outcomes. As an example, strategies providing information or education as single interventions appear ineffective to improve medicines adherence or clinical outcomes, but may be effective to improve knowledge; an important outcome for promoting consumers' informed medicines choices.Despite a doubling in the number of reviews included in this updated overview, uncertainty still exists about the effectiveness of many interventions, and the evidence on what works remains sparse for several populations, including children and young people, carers, and people with multimorbidity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This overview presents evidence from 75 reviews that have synthesised trials and other studies evaluating the effects of interventions to improve consumers' medicines use.Systematically assembling the evidence across reviews allows identification of effective or promising interventions to improve consumers' medicines use, as well as those for which the evidence indicates ineffectiveness or uncertainty.Decision makers faced with implementing interventions to improve consumers' medicines use can use this overview to inform decisions about which interventions may be most promising to improve particular outcomes. The intervention taxonomy may also assist people to consider the strategies available in relation to specific purposes, for example, gaining skills or being involved in decision making. Researchers and funders can use this overview to identify where more research is needed and assess its priority. The limitations of the available literature due to the lack of evidence for important outcomes and important populations, such as people with multimorbidity, should also be considered in practice and policy decisions.