FINDING EVIDENCE FOR REVIEWS OF ADVERSE EFFECTS
Evaluating and optimising the retrieval of research evidence for systematic reviews of adverse effects
Well-conducted systematic reviews contain a comprehensive summary of the available evidence on a given topic and are valuable sources of information for decision-makers. However, most systematic reviews focus on establishing the benefits rather than the side effects of treatments.
Whilst methods for identifying evidence relating to the benefits of treatments are well established, little is known about how best to find the evidence on the side effects of a treatment. By using a series of systematic reviews as case studies this research aims to: investigate which types of research are most helpful for identifying information on side effects; where are the best places to look for information on side effects; and what are the best ways to search for side effects in the databases available.
By providing guidance on the types of research to look for, where and how to look, this study aims to help researchers optimise the retrieval of research evidence on both the benefits and harms of treatments.Conducted by: Su Golder1, Lesley Stewart1 (Supervisor)
1. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination
Golder S, Loke YK, Zorzela L. Some improvements are apparent in identifying adverse effects in systematic reviews from 1994 to 2011. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66(3):253-60
Golder S, Loke Y. Failure or success of electronic search strategies to identify adverse effects data. J Med Libr Assoc 2012;100(2):130-4
Golder S, Loke Y. Sensitivity and precision of adverse effects search filters in MEDLINE and EMBASE: a case study of fractures with thiazolidinediones. Health Info Libr J 2012; 29(1):28-38
Golder S, Loke YK. The contribution of different information sources for adverse effects data. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2012;28(2):133-7
Golder S, Loke YK. The performance of adverse effects search filters in Medline and Embase. Health Info Libr J 2012;29(2):141-51
Warren FC, Abrams KR, Golder S, Sutton AJ. Systematic review of methods used in meta-analyses where a primary outcome is an adverse or unintended event. BMC Med Res Methodol 2012, 12:64
Golder S, Loke YK, Bland M. Meta-analyses of adverse effects data derived from randomised controlled trials as compared to observational studies: methodological overview. PLoS Med. 2011;8(5)
Loke YK, Golder S, Vandenbroucke JP. Comprehensive evaluations of the adverse effects of drugs: importance of appropriate study selection and data sources. Therapeutic Advances Drug Safety 2011;2(2):59-68
Golder S, Loke YK. Sources of information on adverse effects: a systematic review. Health Info Libr J. 2010;27(3):176-90
Golder S, Loke YK, Bland M. Unpublished data can be of value in systematic reviews of adverse effects: methodological overview. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(10):1071-81
Golder S, Loke YK. Search strategies to identify information on adverse effects: a systematic review. J Med Libr Assoc. 2009; 97(2): 84-92
Glanville J, Bayliss S, Booth A, Dundar Y, Fernandes H, Fleeman ND, Foster L, Fraser C, Fry-Smith A, Golder S, Lefebvre C, Miller C, Paisley S, Payne L, Price A, Welch K. So many filters, so little time: the development of a search filter appraisal checklist. J Medical Libr Assoc. 2008; 96(4): 356-61
Golder S, Loke Y. Is there evidence for biased reporting of published adverse effects data in pharmaceutical industry-funded studies? Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2008: 66(6): 767-73Golder S, Loke Y, McIntosh HM. Poor reporting and inadequate searches were apparent in systematic reviews of adverse effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 61(5): 440-8
Golder S, Loke Y, Bland M. Comparison of adverse effects data derived from different study designs.The usefulness of different information sources for retrieving adverse effects data for a systematic review.
Commissioned by the MRC Training Fellowship
Page last updated: 13 July 2012