biostudies-literatureQureshi RNEI NIH HHSJohns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health212-223https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC9875742biostudies-literatureUnknown143<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, bJournal of clinical epidemiologyHarms in Systematic Reviews Paper 2: Methods used to assess harms are neglected in systematic reviews of gabapentin.PMC9875742UG1 EY020522McAdams-DeMarco MGuallar ELi TMayo-Wilson ERittiphairoj TQureshi RfalseHarms in Systematic Reviews Paper 2: Methods used to assess harms are neglected in systematic reviews of gabapentin.<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, b2022-01-01T00:00:00Z2022 Mar2025-04-04T00:02:52.025Z2025-04-04T00:02:52.025ZS-EPMC98757423474278910.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.10.024