Intended for healthcare professionals

  1. Research
  2. Quality of reporting...
  3. Quality of reporting in systematic reviews of adverse events: systematic review
CCBYNC Open access
Research

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

BMJ 2014; 348 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f7668 (Published 08 January 2014) Cite this as: BMJ 2014;348:f7668

All rapid responses

Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.

From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.

The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.

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

We would like to commend Zorzela and colleagues for producing a thorough reporting checklist for systematic reviews of adverse outcomes. We would like to make one small additional point. We believe that uncommon adverse events are under reported in studies, particularly when such events are not part of the primary or secondary outcome measures, or when they are deemed unrelated to the intervention being studied. Journal word limits may also hinder the publication of this data. We believe it is vitally important to attempt to contact the authors of studies for data regarding adverse events that may not have been reported in the original publication of studies, prior to inclusion in systematic reviews. Authors of primary studies should fully support systematic review authors by providing relevant data.

Competing interests: No competing interests

10 January 2014
James R Berstock
Specialty registrar in orthopaedic surgery
Andrew Beswick
Avon Orthopaedic Centre & Musculoskeletal Research Unit, University of Bristol
Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Southmead Hospital, Bristol BS10 5NB
Back to top