Intended for healthcare professionals

  1. Research
  2. Validity of data...
  3. Validity of data extraction in evidence synthesis practice of adverse events: reproducibility study
CCBYNC Open access
Research

Validity of data extraction in evidence synthesis practice of adverse events: reproducibility study

BMJ 2022; 377 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2021-069155 (Published 10 May 2022) Cite this as: BMJ 2022;377:e069155

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.

Reporting of adverse events in clinical trials: still room for improvement.

Dear Editor,

Chang Xu et al. (1) reported interesting findings regarding data extraction in systematic reviews of adverse events AEs. As stated in their excellent paper, data extraction errors reached a proportion as high as 85% in systematic reviews examined. Errors were mainly explained by unclear definitions of outcomes assessed.

It has been highlighted in the literature that reporting of AEs is frequently neglected in clinical trials with poor definitions of outcomes (2, 3). Adherence to the CONSORT harms guidelines remains highly variable according to trials and research areas (3). As stated by John PA Ioannidis in response to our review (2, 4), AEs in clinical trials are neglected, restricted, distorted, and silenced. From a public health perspective, this poor reporting can mislead clinical practice and expose patients to harms and safety issues. The rofecoxib case is one public health example where AEs were silenced. The drug withdrawal was delayed despite a number of warnings from scientists regarding its cardiovascular toxicity (5).

In conclusion, efforts are still needed to improve reporting of harms and properly assess the benefit/harm balance in clinical trials.

1. BMJ 2022;377:e069155
2. Pitrou I, Boutron I, Ahmad N, Ravaud P. Reporting of safety results in published reports of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med. 2009 Oct 26;169(19):1756-61. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.306.
3. Hodkinson A, Kirkham JJ, Tudur-Smith C, Gamble C. Reporting of harms data in RCTs: a systematic review of empirical assessments against the CONSORT harms extension. BMJ Open. 2013;3(9):e003436.
4. Ioannidis JP. Adverse events in randomized trials: neglected, restricted, distorted, and silenced. Arch Intern Med. 2009 Oct 26;169(19):1737-9. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.313.
5. Topol EJ. Failing the public health--rofecoxib, Merck, and the FDA. N Engl J Med. 2004 Oct 21;351(17):1707-9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp048286.

Competing interests: No competing interests

13 May 2022
Isabelle Ellen Pitrou
Epidemiologist
1. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Sherbrooke, Campus Longueuil, QC, Canada 2. Charles-Le Moyne Research Center (CRCLM), Longueuil, QC, Canada
150 Place Charles-Le Moyne, Longueuil, QC J4K 0A8, Canada
Back to top