Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Assessing harmful effects in systematic reviews.

Heather M McIntosh1, Nerys F Woolacott, Anne-Marie Bagnall

  • 1Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, UK. hm14@york.ac.uk

BMC Medical Research Methodology
|July 21, 2004
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Study protocol, increasing awareness and early detection in students at risk of gynaecological cancer: feasibility of an online educational and behaviour change intervention.

Pilot and feasibility studies·2026
Same author

Effects of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programmes on community rates of HPV-related disease and harms from vaccination.

The Cochrane database of systematic reviews·2025
Same author

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Used to Assess Surgical Interventions for Pelvic Organ Prolapse, Stress Urinary Incontinence and Mesh Complications: A Scoping Review for the Development of the APPRAISE PROM.

BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology·2025
Same author

'The Health-Secure Partnership': Study protocol for the development of a school- & community-based intervention for promoting healthy nutrition among rural adolescents in The Gambia.

PloS one·2025
Same author

Correction: BEFRIENding for depression, anxiety and social support in older adults living in Australian residential aged care facilities (BEFRIENDAS): randomised controlled trial protocol.

BMC geriatrics·2025
Same author

Community engagement approaches to improve health: a cross-case study analysis of barriers and facilitators in UK practice.

BMC public health·2025
Same journal

Integrating health economics and implementation science: a call to action.

BMC medical research methodology·2026
Same journal

Methods for incorporating test result information within the high-dimensional propensity score framework: application in UK electronic health record data.

BMC medical research methodology·2026
Same journal

Sparse multi-way DMDC for longitudinal classification in high dimension low sample size data.

BMC medical research methodology·2026
Same journal

Tree-based exploratory identification of predictive biomarkers in non-randomized data.

BMC medical research methodology·2026
Same journal

Comparative evaluation of interrupted time series analytical methods for healthcare quality improvement research: a Monte Carlo simulation study.

BMC medical research methodology·2026
Same journal

Methodological advances in claims-based dementia algorithms: integrating medication and clinical data for medicare populations.

BMC medical research methodology·2026
See all related articles

Systematic reviews on harmful effects need focused questions and better quality assessment methods. Improving these areas will yield more useful evidence for healthcare decisions.

Area of Science:

  • Health Research Methodology
  • Evidence Synthesis
  • Clinical Decision Making

Background:

  • Reliable evidence on both benefits and harms is crucial for balanced healthcare intervention decisions.
  • Systematic reviews commonly focus on efficacy, with less developed methods for reviewing harmful effects.
  • Guidance for researchers conducting systematic reviews of harms is limited.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To describe and compare methods used in three systematic reviews of harmful effects.
  • To identify challenges and areas for improvement in reviewing harmful effects.
  • To provide suggestions for future practice and research in systematic reviews of harms.

Main Methods:

  • Comparison of three systematic reviews focusing on review question, study designs, and quality assessment.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Evaluation of inclusion criteria for randomized and observational data.
  • Assessment of standard methods for evaluating study quality.

    • Main Results:

    • Review questions varied in scope, from specific harms for economic modeling to broader questions.
    • Inclusion criteria for study designs differed across reviews.
    • Practical challenges arose from poor study design, inadequate reporting, and limitations of existing quality assessment tools.
    • Reviews generated substantial work but limited actionable information for decision-makers.

    Conclusions:

    • Focused review questions are essential for generating pertinent information for clinical decision-making.
    • Clear decisions on research inclusion depend on well-defined review questions.
    • Further development of methodologies for assessing the quality of data on harmful effects is necessary.