{"database":"biostudies-literature","file_versions":[],"scores":null,"additional":{"submitter":["Qureshi R"],"funding":["NEI NIH HHS","Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health"],"pagination":["212-223"],"full_dataset_link":["https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC9875742"],"repository":["biostudies-literature"],"omics_type":["Unknown"],"volume":["143"],"pubmed_abstract":["<h4>Objective</h4>We compared methods used with current recommendations for synthesizing harms in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) of gabapentin.<h4>Study design & setting</h4>We followed recommended systematic review practices. We selected reliable SRMAs of gabapentin (i.e., met a pre-defined list of methodological criteria) that assessed at least one harm. We extracted and compared methods in four areas: pre-specification, searching, analysis, and reporting. Whereas our focus in this paper is on the methods used, Part 2 examines the results for harms across reviews.<h4>Results</h4>We screened 4320 records and identified 157 SRMAs of gabapentin, 70 of which were reliable. Most reliable reviews (51/70; 73%) reported following a general guideline for SRMA conduct or reporting, b"],"journal":["Journal of clinical epidemiology"],"pubmed_title":["Harms in Systematic Reviews Paper 2: Methods used to assess harms are neglected in systematic reviews of gabapentin."],"pmcid":["PMC9875742"],"funding_grant_id":["UG1 EY020522"],"pubmed_authors":["McAdams-DeMarco M","Guallar E","Li T","Mayo-Wilson E","Rittiphairoj T","Qureshi R"],"additional_accession":[]},"is_claimable":false,"name":"Harms in Systematic Reviews Paper 2: Methods used to assess harms are neglected in systematic reviews of gabapentin.","description":"<h4>Objective</h4>We compared methods used with current recommendations for synthesizing harms in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) of gabapentin.<h4>Study design & setting</h4>We followed recommended systematic review practices. We selected reliable SRMAs of gabapentin (i.e., met a pre-defined list of methodological criteria) that assessed at least one harm. We extracted and compared methods in four areas: pre-specification, searching, analysis, and reporting. Whereas our focus in this paper is on the methods used, Part 2 examines the results for harms across reviews.<h4>Results</h4>We screened 4320 records and identified 157 SRMAs of gabapentin, 70 of which were reliable. Most reliable reviews (51/70; 73%) reported following a general guideline for SRMA conduct or reporting, b","dates":{"release":"2022-01-01T00:00:00Z","publication":"2022 Mar","modification":"2025-04-04T00:02:52.025Z","creation":"2025-04-04T00:02:52.025Z"},"accession":"S-EPMC9875742","cross_references":{"pubmed":["34742789"],"doi":["10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.10.024"]}}