Liliane Zorzela

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

Objectives To examine the quality of reporting of harms in systematic reviews, and to determine the need for a reporting guideline specific for reviews of harms. Design Systematic review. Data sources Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE). Review methods Databases were searched for systematic reviews having an adverse event as the main outcome, published from January 2008 to April 2011. Adverse events included an adverse reaction, harms, or complications associated with any healthcare intervention. Articles with a primary aim to investigate the complete safety profile of an intervention were also included. We developed a list of 37 items to measure the quality of reporting on harms in each review; data were collected as dichotomous outcomes (“yes” or “no” for each item). Results Of 4644 reviews identified, 309 were systematic reviews or meta-analyses primarily assessing harms (13 from CDSR; 296 from DARE). Despite a short time interval, the comparison between the years of 2008 and 2010-11 showed no difference on the quality of reporting over time (P=0.079). Titles in fewer than half the reviews (proportion of reviews 0.46 (95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.52)) did not mention any harm related terms. Almost one third of DARE reviews (0.26 (0.22 to 0.31)) did not clearly define the adverse events reviewed, nor did they specify the study designs selected for inclusion in their methods section. Almost half of reviews (n=170) did not consider patient risk factors or length of follow-up when reviewing harms of an intervention. Of 67 reviews of complications related to surgery or other procedures, only four (0.05 (0.01 to 0.14)) reported professional qualifications of the individuals involved. The overall, unweighted, proportion of reviews with good reporting was 0.56 (0.55 to 0.57); corresponding proportions were 0.55 (0.53 to 0.57) in 2008, 0.55 (0.54 to 0.57) in 2009, and 0.57 (0.55 to 0.58) in 2010-11. Conclusion Systematic reviews compound the poor reporting of harms data in primary studies by failing to report on harms or doing so inadequately. Improving reporting of adverse events in systematic reviews is an important step towards a balanced assessment of an intervention.

PRISMA harms checklist: Improving harms reporting in systematic reviews

Introduction For any health intervention, accurate knowledge of both benefits and harms is needed. Systematic reviews often compound poor reporting of harms in primary studies by failing to report harms or doing so inadequately. While the PRISMA statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) helps systematic review authors ensure complete and transparent reporting, it is focused mainly on efficacy. Thus, a PRISMA harms checklist has been developed to improve harms reporting in systematic reviews, promoting a more balanced assessment of benefits and harms. Methods A development strategy, endorsed by the EQUATOR Network and existing reporting guidelines (including the PRISMA statement, PRISMA for abstracts, and PRISMA for protocols), was used. After the development of a draft checklist of items, a modified Delphi process was initiated. The Delphi consisted of three rounds of electronic feedback followed by an in-person meeting. Results The PRISMA harms checklist contains four essential reporting elements to be added to the original PRISMA statement to improve harms reporting in reviews. These are reported in the title (“Specifically mention ‘harms’ or other related terms, or the harm of interest in the review”), synthesis of results (“Specify how zero events were handled, if relevant”), study characteristics (“Define each harm addressed, how it was ascertained (eg, patient report, active search), and over what time period”), and synthesis of results (“Describe any assessment of possible causality”). Additional guidance regarding existing PRISMA items was developed to demonstrate relevance when synthesising information about harms. Conclusion The PRISMA harms checklist identifies a minimal set of items to be reported when reviewing adverse events. This guideline extension is intended to improve harms reporting in systematic reviews, whether harms are a primary or secondary outcome.

Long-acting versus short-acting methylphenidate for paediatric ADHD: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative efficacy.

Objective To synthesise existing knowledge of the efficacy and safety of long-acting versus short-acting methylphenidate for paediatric attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Electronic literature search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychINFO, Scopus and Web of Science for articles published in the English language between 1950 and 2012. Reference lists of included studies were checked for additional studies. Study selection Randomised controlled trials of paediatric ADHD patients (<18 years), comparing a long-acting methylphenidate form to a short-acting methylphenidate form. Data extraction Two authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Continuous outcomes were compared using standardised mean differences (SMDs) between treatment groups. Adverse events were compared using risk differences between treatment groups. Heterogeneity was explored by subgroup analysis based on the type of long-acting formulation used. Results Thirteen RCTs were included; data from 882 participants contributed to the analysis. Meta-analysis of three studies which used parent ratings to report on hyperactivity/impulsivity had an SMD of −0.30 (95% CI −0.51 to −0.08) favouring the long-acting forms. In contrast, three studies used teacher ratings to report on hyperactivity and had an SMD of 0.29 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.52) favouring the short-acting methylphenidate. In addition, subgroup analysis of three studies which used parent ratings to report on inattention/overactivity indicate that the osmotic release oral system generation long-acting formulation was favoured with an SMD of −0.35 (95% CI −0.52 to −0.17), while the second generation showed less efficacy than the short-acting formulation with an SMD of 0.42 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.68). The long-acting formulations presented with slightly more total reported adverse events (n=578) as compared with the short-acting formulation (n=566). Conclusions The findings from this systematic review indicate that the long-acting forms have a modest effect on the severity of inattention/overactivity and hyperactivity/impulsivity according to parent reports, whereas the short-acting methylphenidate was preferred according to teacher reports for hyperactivity.

Some improvements are apparent in identifying adverse effects in systematic reviews from 1994 to 2011

OBJECTIVE An increasing amount of research and guidelines has been published on search methodology and the reporting of search strategies in systematic reviews. This research assessed whether this has lead to any improvements in the reporting and quality of searching in systematic reviews of adverse effects. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING All records within Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were scanned for systematic reviews of adverse effects. Data were then extracted on the methods used for information retrieval in these reviews and a descriptive analysis conducted by publication year. RESULTS A total of 849 reviews published from 1994 to 2011 met the inclusion criteria. There has been a significant increase (P<0.001) in the number of adverse effects reviews per year from 1994 (n=5) to 2010 (n=104). Some improvements were apparent, such as an increase in the number of databases searched and fewer date and language restrictions applied. However, there has been an increase in reviews limited to data from randomized controlled trials, whereas the reporting of search strategies could still be improved further, with only 9% (74/849) of the reviews reporting reproducible searches. CONCLUSION Some improvements in searching systematic reviews of adverse effects are apparent; however, poor reporting of search strategies remains a great obstacle to readers.

Comparison of search strategies in systematic reviews of adverse effects to other systematic reviews

BACKGROUND Research indicates that the methods used to identify data for systematic reviews of adverse effects may need to differ from other systematic reviews. OBJECTIVES To compare search methods in systematic reviews of adverse effects with other reviews. METHODS The search methodologies in 849 systematic reviews of adverse effects were compared with other reviews. RESULTS Poor reporting of search strategies is apparent in both systematic reviews of adverse effects and other types of systematic reviews. Systematic reviews of adverse effects are less likely to restrict their searches to MEDLINE or include only randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The use of other databases is largely dependent on the topic area and the year the review was conducted, with more databases searched in more recent reviews. Adverse effects search terms are used by 72% of reviews and despite recommendations only two reviews report using floating subheadings. CONCLUSIONS The poor reporting of search strategies in systematic reviews is universal, as is the dominance of searching MEDLINE. However, reviews of adverse effects are more likely to include a range of study designs (not just RCTs) and search beyond MEDLINE.

Survival and neurocognitive outcomes in pediatric extracorporeal-cardiopulmonary resuscitation

OBJECTIVE Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (E-CPR) is the initiation of extracorporeal life support during active chest compressions. There are no studies describing detailed neurocognitive outcomes of this population. We aim to describe the survival and neurocognitive outcomes of children who received E-CPR. METHODS Prospective cohort study. Children who received E-CPR at the Stollery Childrens Hospital between 2000 and 2010 were included. Neurocognitive follow-up, including Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scales of Intelligence, was completed at the age of 4.5 years, and at a minimum of 6 months after the E-CPR admission. RESULTS Fifty-five patients received E-CPR between 2000 and 2010. Children with cardiac disease had a 49% survival to hospital discharge and 43% survival at age 5-years, with no survivors (n=4) in those with non-cardiac disease. Pediatric E-CPR survivors had a mean (SD) Full Scale Intelligence quotient (FSIQ) score of 76.5 (15.9); with 4 children (24%) having intellectual disability (defined as FSIQ over 2 standard deviations below the population mean; i.e., <70). Multiple Cox regression analysis found that mechanical ventilation prior to E-CPR, open chest CPR, longer duration of CPR, low pH and more red blood cells given on the first day of ECMO, and longer time for lactate to normalize on ECMO were associated with higher mortality at age 5-years. CONCLUSION Pediatric patients with cardiac disease who required E-CPR had 43% survival at age 5 years. Of concern, the intelligence quotient in E-CPR survivors was significantly lower than the population mean, with 24% having intellectual disability.

Is there a role for modified probiotics as beneficial microbes: a systematic review of the literature

Our objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis for the use of modified (heat-killed or sonicated) probiotics for the efficacy and safety to prevent and treat various diseases. Recent clinical research has focused on living strains of probiotics, but use in high-risk patients and potential adverse reactions including bacteremia has focused interest on alternatives to the use of live probiotics. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Alt Health Watch, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, from inception to February 14, 2017 for randomised controlled trials involving modified probiotic strains. The primary outcome was efficacy to prevent or treat disease and the secondary outcome was incidence of adverse events. A total of 40 trials were included (n=3,913): 14 trials (15 arms with modified probiotics and 20 control arms) for the prevention of diseases and 26 trials (29 arms with modified probiotics and 32 control arms) for treatment of various diseases. Modified microbes were compared to either placebo (44%), or the same living probiotic strain (39%) or to only standard therapies (17%). Modified microbes were not significantly more or less effective than the living probiotic in 86% of the preventive trials and 69% of the treatment trials. Modified probiotic strains were significantly more effective in 15% of the treatment trials. Incidence rates of adverse events were similar for modified and living probiotics and other control groups, but many trials did not collect adequate safety data. Although several types of modified probiotics showed significant efficacy over living strains of probiotics, firm conclusions could not be reached due to the limited number of trials using the same type of modified microbe (strain, daily dose and duration) for a specific disease indication. Further research may illuminate other strains of modified probiotics that may have potential as clinical biotherapeutics.

Tool to assess causality of direct and indirect adverse events associated with therapeutic interventions

Abstract Objective: To develop and test a tool to assess the causality of direct and indirect adverse events associated with therapeutic interventions. The intervention was one or more drugs and/or natural health products, a device, or practice (professional delivering the intervention). Methods: Through the assessment of causality of adverse events, we can learn about factors contributing to the harm and consider what modification may prevent its reoccurrence. Existing scales (WHO-UMC, Naranjo and Horn) were adapted to develop a tool (algorithm and table) to evaluate cases of serious harmful events reported through a national surveillance study. We also incorporated a novel approach that assesses indirect harm (caused by the delay in diagnosis/treatment) and the health provider delivering the intervention (practice). The tool was tested, revised and then implemented to assess all reported cases of serious events resulting from use of complementary therapies. The use of complementary therapies was the trigger to report the event. Each case was evaluated by two assessors, out of a panel of five, representing different health care professionals. Results: The tool was used in assessment of eight serious adverse events. Each event was independently evaluated by two assessors. The algorithm facilitated assessment of a serious direct or indirect harm. Assessors agreed in the final score on seven of eight cases (weighted kappa coefficient of 0.75). Conclusion: A tool to support the assessment of causality of adverse events was developed and tested. We propose a novel method to assess direct and indirect harms related to product(s), device(s), practice or a combination of the previous. Further research will probably help evaluate this approach across different settings and interventions.