ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2022
Harms in Systematic Reviews Paper 3: Given the same data sources, systematic reviews of gabapentin have different results for harms.
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 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Robotic-assisted thoracic surgery for resectable lung cancer: efficacy, safety and surgical approaches - an umbrella review of meta-analyses.BMC surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Reporting of harms in systematic reviews focused on naltrexone: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Pooled it
- CONSORT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Influence of lack of blinding on the estimation of medication-related harms: a retrospective cohort study of randomized controlled trials.BMC medicine · 2024Article
- Clinical utility of overviews on adverse events of pharmacological interventions.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Seeking adverse effects in systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions: a cross-sectional study (part 1).Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Harms reporting by systematic reviews for functional endoscopic sinus surgery: a cross-sectional analysis.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2023Article
- Conducting separate reviews of benefits and harms could improve systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- A cross-sectional analysis of harms reporting in systematic reviews evaluating laminectomy.North American Spine Society journal · 2023Review
- Harms Reporting Is Inadequate in Systematic Reviews Regarding Hip Arthroscopy.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Harms in Systematic Reviews Paper 2: Methods used to assess harms are neglected in systematic reviews of gabapentin.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2022Article
- Harms in Systematic Reviews Paper 1: An introduction to research on harms.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveIn this methodologic study (Part 2 of 2), we examined the overlap in sources of evidence and the corresponding results for harms in systematic reviews for gabapentin. STUDY DESIGN &
settingWe extracted all citations referenced as sources of evidence for harms of gabapentin from 70 systematic reviews, as well as the harms assessed and numerical results. We assessed consistency of harms between pairs of reviews with a high degree of overlap in sources of evidence (>50%) as determined by corrected covered area (CCA).
resultsWe found 514 reports cited across 70 included reviews. Most reports (244/514, 48%) were not cited in more than one review. Among 18 pairs of reviews, we found reviews had differences in which harms were assessed and their choice to meta-analyze estimates or present descriptive summaries. When a specific harm was meta-analyzed in a pair of reviews, we found similar effect estimates.
conclusionDifferences in harms results across reviews can occur because the choice of harms is driven by reviewer preferences, rather than standardized approaches to selecting harms for assessment. A paradigm shift is needed in the current approach to synthesizing harms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.