Characterization of gastrointestinal adverse effects reported in clinical studies of corticosteroid therapy
| Autor: | Marianne Klemp, Sigrid Narum, Tone Westergren |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2017 |
| Předmět: |
medicine.medical_specialty
Gastrointestinal bleeding Epidemiology Gastrointestinal Diseases Perforation (oil well) Alternative medicine 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Double-Blind Method Meta-Analysis as Topic Adrenal Cortex Hormones Pharmacovigilance medicine Humans 030212 general & internal medicine Adverse effect Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic business.industry Absolute risk reduction Odds ratio medicine.disease humanities Checklist Surgery Research Design Emergency medicine Periodicals as Topic business 030217 neurology & neurosurgery Systematic Reviews as Topic |
| Zdroj: | Journal of clinical epidemiology. 94 |
| ISSN: | 1878-5921 0895-4356 |
| Popis: | Objectives To examine whether 159 studies included in a previous meta-analysis reported on gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation in accordance with the CONSORT extension for reporting harms outcomes (CONSORT Harms recommendations checklist); whether differences were associated with funding source, journal, or publication year; and whether the CONSORT Harms checklist is a suitable tool for evaluation of adverse effects reporting. Study Design and Setting Articles were assessed for fulfillment of the CONSORT Harms recommendations, funding source, publication type, and year. Agreement between reviewers was assessed by comparing scores for each study. Results The mean CONSORT Harms score was 5.25 out of 10 (standard deviation ± 2.09). Most studies included information on participant withdrawals (133 studies, 83.6%), absolute risk of gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation (130 studies, 81.8%), and how harms-related information was collected (118 studies, 74.2%). Reporting of gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation increased with higher scores (odds ratio 1.173, P = 0.042). There was no significant association between CONSORT Harms score achieved and publication year or funding source, but there was a trend toward higher scores in studies published in the major medical journals (score difference 0.78, P = 0.052). Definitions of gastrointestinal bleeding differed between studies. Reviewer agreement was fair to moderate with large variations. Conclusion Few studies in the systematic review received high scores using the CONSORT Harms criteria. Most studies reported on the most important criteria regarding risk of gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation. Reviewer agreement showed large variations due to imprecise texts and ambiguous criteria. Routine scoring according to fulfillment of the CONSORT Harms recommendations would be inadvisable without qualified judgment. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full Text from ScienceDirect