Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34742789›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2022

Harms in Systematic Reviews Paper 2: Methods used to assess harms are neglected in systematic reviews of gabapentin.

Riaz Qureshi, Evan Mayo-Wilson, Thanitsara Rittiphairoj, Mara McAdams-DeMarco, Eliseo Guallar, Tianjing Li

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Physical Exercise After Solid Organ Transplantation: A Cautionary Tale.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Harms Reporting Is Inadequate in Systematic Reviews Regarding Hip Arthroscopy.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Riaz QureshiDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Evan Mayo-WilsonDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Public Health, Bloomington, ID, USA.
Thanitsara RittiphairojCochrane Eyes and Vision United States, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
Mara McAdams-DeMarcoDepartment of Surgery, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Eliseo GuallarDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Tianjing LiDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA. Electronic address: tianjing.li@cuanschutz.edu.

Funding

Maximizing Use of High-Quality Evidence in Eye Care: Cochrane Eyes and Vision US ProjectUG1EY020522 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI Tianjing Li · 2017 to 2026
$10.1M
NEI NIH HHS UG1 EY020522
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe compared methods used with current recommendations for synthesizing harms in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) of gabapentin. STUDY DESIGN &

settingWe followed recommended systematic review practices. We selected reliable SRMAs of gabapentin (i.e., met a pre-defined list of methodological criteria) that assessed at least one harm. We extracted and compared methods in four areas: pre-specification, searching, analysis, and reporting. Whereas our focus in this paper is on the methods used, Part 2 examines the results for harms across reviews.

resultsWe screened 4320 records and identified 157 SRMAs of gabapentin, 70 of which were reliable. Most reliable reviews (51/70; 73%) reported following a general guideline for SRMA conduct or reporting, but none reported following recommendations specifically for synthesizing harms. Across all domains assessed, review methods were designed to address questions of benefit and rarely included the additional methods that are recommended for evaluating harms.

conclusionApproaches to assessing harms in SRMAs we examined are tokenistic and unlikely to produce valid summaries of harms to guide decisions. A paradigm shift is needed. At a minimal, reviewers should describe any limitations to their assessment of harms and provide clearer descriptions of methods for synthesizing harms.

Indexed as

GabapentinHumansSystematic Reviews as TopicGabapentinClinical TrialsHarmsMeta-analysisSynthesisSystematic Reviews

Identifiers

PMID34742789
PMCPMC9875742

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.