PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms reporting in systematic reviews

Zorzela, Liliane; Loke, Yoon K.; Ioannidis, John P. A.; Golder, Su; Santaguida, Pasqualina; Altman, Douglas G.; Moher, David; Vohra, Sunita

doi:10.1136/bmj.i157

Cited by 390 publications

(308 citation statements)

References 80 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

295

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The language limit of the search to the English language might or might not be another source of bias (5,6). Nevertheless, the authors should be transparent when reporting the number of retrieved studies and the results of the screening process (7,8). For instance, the reader should be able to make a judgment of the size and direction of the bias by acknowledging the number of studies not considered for inclusion because of the language of the publication.…”

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety of transcranial direct current stimulation: Evidence based update 2016

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety of transcranial direct current stimulation: Evidence based update 2016

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Few additional nuances from a statistical perspective are noted by the PRISMA Extension Statement for Harms,44 though of note is the need for authors to clearly stipulate the handling of zero cells in meta-analyses as these are not uncommon when reviewing data for end points associated with lower event rates; ensuring clarity regarding criteria employed for supplemental meta-analyses related to harms grades, varying end point definitions and potentially alternative models is also important. Finally, the PRISMA Extension for equity-focused reviews45 mentions a small number additional considerations of statistical relevance related to providing clear specification of subgroup (or other) analyses performed to assess health inequities, with consideration of both relative and absolute measures of effect.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reporting guidance considerations from a statistical perspective: overview of tools to enhance the rigour of reporting of randomised trials and systematic reviews

Hutton

Wolfe

Moher

et al. 2017

Evid Based Mental Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Research waste has received considerable attention from the biomedical community. One noteworthy contributor is incomplete reporting in research publications. When detailing statistical methods and results, ensuring analytic methods and findings are completely documented improves transparency. For publications describing randomised trials and systematic reviews, guidelines have been developed to facilitate complete reporting. This overview summarises aspects of statistical reporting in trials and systematic reviews of health interventions. Methods A narrative approach to summarise features regarding statistical methods and findings from reporting guidelines for trials and reviews was taken. We aim to enhance familiarity of statistical details that should be reported in biomedical research among statisticians and their collaborators.

show abstract

“…We searched specifically for studies into eHealth applications replacing or complementing the face-toface contact between a health professional and a patient in the context of treatment, health monitoring, supporting self-management or their communication [18]. An adverse effect was defined as any unfavourable outcome on the patient or the quality of care that occurred as a result of the use of an eHealth intervention [19]. The following research questions were formulated: 1.…”

Section: Scoping Review Methodsologymentioning

confidence: 99%

eHealth Apps Replacing or Complementing Health Care Contacts: Scoping Review on Adverse Effects (Preprint)

Stevens¹,

Sande²,

Beijer³

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:The use of eHealth has increased tremendously in recent years. eHealth is generally considered to have a positive effect on healthcare quality and to be a promising alternative for face-to-face healthcare contacts. Surprisingly little is known about possible adverse effects of eHealth applications. Objective:We conducted a scoping review on empirical research into adverse effects of eHealth applications that aim to deliver healthcare on a distance. We investigated if adverse effects were reported and the nature and quality of research into these possible adverse effects. Methods:For this scoping review, we followed the five steps of Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology. We examined the literature between December 2012 and August 2017 in the following databases: PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. Each paper was independently screened by at least two authors; differences were resolved through consensus development. Study characteristics were extracted. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) lists. Results related to the research question were described and categorized. Results:Our search identified 79 papers that were potentially relevant; 11 studies met our inclusion criteria after screening. These studies differed in many ways and the majority was characterized by small research populations and low study quality. Despite the shortage of solid research, we found some indications of possible adverse effects Conclusions:There is a lack of high-quality empirical research on adverse effects of eHealth applications replacing or complementing face-to-face care. While the development of eHealth applications is ongoing, the knowledge with regard to possible adverse effects is limited. The available research focuses often on efficacy, added value, implementation issues, use and satisfaction, whereas adverse effects are underexposed. A better understanding of possible adverse effects might be a starting point to improve the positive impact of eHealth-based health care delivery.

show abstract

PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms reporting in systematic reviews

Cited by 390 publications

References 80 publications

Safety of transcranial direct current stimulation: Evidence based update 2016

Safety of transcranial direct current stimulation: Evidence based update 2016

Reporting guidance considerations from a statistical perspective: overview of tools to enhance the rigour of reporting of randomised trials and systematic reviews

eHealth Apps Replacing or Complementing Health Care Contacts: Scoping Review on Adverse Effects (Preprint)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About