Failure or success of electronic search strategies to identify adverse effects data.

Abstract

One of the key difficulties in conducting specific searches for adverse effects stems from the absence of adverse effects terms in the title, abstract, and indexing of relevant articles. In 2001, Derry et al. evaluated articles that reported adverse effects data from clinical trials and found that about 23% of such articles had no adverse effects terms (either generic or specific) in the title, abstract, or indexing of records in MEDLINE or EMBASE [1]. Hence, electronic searches based on specific adverse effect–related terms could miss nearly a quarter of relevant papers. Current guidance on systematic reviews of adverse effects emphasizes the use of nonspecific searches (without relying on adverse effects terms) as well as the need to check full-text versions of retrieved articles to ensure a complete search [2]. Unfortunately, implementation of such guidance is onerous and time consuming compared to running more specific adverse effects–based searches. However, methodological developments in the past decade might have changed the situation since Derry et al.'s study [1]. In 2003, ten new recommendations about the reporting of harms were added to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), including a recommendation that if the study collected data on harms, the title or abstract should state this [3]. Additionally, the Cochrane Adverse Effects Methods Group , which was formed in 2007, as well as many other authors, called for improved reporting of adverse effects [4–32]. However, it is unclear if these developments have had a meaningful impact on the prevalence of adverse effects terms in the title, abstract, or indexing of relevant adverse effects papers. This study collected a large, diverse, and contemporaneous cohort of articles with adverse effects data so that the presence or absence of specific adverse effects terms could be assessed [1].