Cargando…
Conducting separate reviews of benefits and harms could improve systematic reviews and meta-analyses
Guidance for systematic reviews of interventions recommends both benefits and harms be included. Systematic reviews may reach conclusions about harms (or lack of harms) that are not true when reviews include only some relevant studies, rely on incomplete data from eligible studies, use inappropriate...
Autores principales: | Mayo-Wilson, Evan, Qureshi, Riaz, Li, Tianjing |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10105415/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37061724 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02234-0 |
Ejemplares similares
-
Summaries of harms in systematic reviews are unreliable Paper 1: An introduction to research on harms
por: Qureshi, Riaz, et al.
Publicado: (2022) -
Harms in Systematic Reviews Paper 2: Methods used to assess harms are neglected in systematic reviews of gabapentin
por: Qureshi, Riaz, et al.
Publicado: (2022) -
Harms in Systematic Reviews Paper 3: Given the same data sources, systematic reviews of gabapentin have different results for harms
por: Qureshi, Riaz, et al.
Publicado: (2022) -
Practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (with examples from the MUDS study)
por: Mayo‐Wilson, Evan, et al.
Publicado: (2017) -
Are ChatGPT and large language models “the answer” to bringing us closer to systematic review automation?
por: Qureshi, Riaz, et al.
Publicado: (2023)