Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37779893›Full record

ArticleBMJ medicine2023

Quality of reporting of adverse events in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs: systematic review.

Karima Madi, Clara Flumian, Pascale Olivier, Agnès Sommet, François Montastruc

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Karima MadiCIC 1436, Team PEPSS (Pharmacologie En Population cohorteS et biobanqueS), Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Clara FlumianCIC 1436, Team PEPSS (Pharmacologie En Population cohorteS et biobanqueS), Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Pascale OlivierDepartment of Medical and Clinical Pharmacology, Centre of PharmacoVigilance and Pharmacoepidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Toulouse, Toulouse, France.
Agnès SommetCIC 1436, Team PEPSS (Pharmacologie En Population cohorteS et biobanqueS), Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France.
François MontastrucCIC 1436, Team PEPSS (Pharmacologie En Population cohorteS et biobanqueS), Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France.ORCID 0000-0001-7056-8126
Université Fédérale de Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Toulouse · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To assess the quality of reporting of adverse events in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs based on the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) harms extension and according to clinical trial design, and to examine reporting of serious adverse events in drug trials published on PubMed versus clinical trial summaries on ClinicalTrials.gov. Design: Systematic review. Data sources: PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov registries were searched from 1 December 2019 to 17 February 2022. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Randomised clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of drugs used to treat covid-19 disease in participants of all ages with suspected, probable, or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Clinical trials were screened on title, abstract, and text by two authors independently. Only articles published in French and English were selected. The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) was used to assess risk of bias. Results: The search strategy identified 1962 randomised clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of drugs used to treat covid-19, published in the PubMed database; 1906 articles were excluded after screening and 56 clinical trials were included in the review. Among the 56 clinical trials, no study had a high score for quality of reporting of adverse events, 60.7% had a moderate score, 33.9% had a low score, and 5.4% had a very low score. All clinical trials with a very low score for quality of reporting of adverse events were randomised open label trials. For reporting of serious adverse events, journal articles published on PubMed under-reported 51% of serious adverse events compared with clinical trial summaries published on ClinicalTrials.gov. Conclusions: In one in three published clinical trials on covid-19 drugs, the quality of reporting of adverse events was low or very low. Differences were found in the number of serious adverse events reported in journal articles versus clinical trial summaries. During the covid-19 pandemic, risk assessment of drugs in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs did not comply with good practice recommendations for publication of results. Systematic review registration: European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP) EUPAS45959.

Indexed as

Clinical trialCOVID-19Drug-related side effects and adverse reactionsDrug therapy

Identifiers

PMID37779893
PMCPMC10537984
OpenAlexW4386914415

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.