Skip to main content

Languages

Quality in reporting adverse events and the PRISMA Harms Extension

Date and Location

Session: 

W3.10

Date: 

Sunday 22 September 2013 - 13:30 - 15:00

Location

Methods Group and core training

Methods Group

Adverse Effects Methods Group
Contact persons and facilitators

Contact person

Liliane Zorzela

Facilitators

Liliane Zorzela
Sunita Vohra
Su Golder
Other contributors
First nameLast nameAffiliation and Country

First name

Yoon

Last name

Loke

Affiliation and Country

University of East Anglia, UK

First name

David

Last name

Moher

Affiliation and Country

Ottawa Health Research Institute, Canada

First name

Doug

Last name

Altman

Affiliation and Country

Oxford University, UK

First name

John

Last name

Ioannidis

Affiliation and Country

Stanford University, United States

First name

Jan

Last name

Vandenbroucke

Affiliation and Country

Leiden University, Netherlands

First name

Lina

Last name

Santaguinda

Affiliation and Country

McMaster University, Canada

First name

Su

Last name

Golder

Affiliation and Country

York University, UK
Target audience

Target audience

review authors, consumers, researchers with interest in adverse events

Is your workshop restricted to a specific audience or open to all Colloquium participants?

Open

Level of knowledge required

Any
Type of workshop

Type of workshop

Training
Abstract text

Abstract

Objectives: (i) Enable participants to identify the pitfalls/difficulties/problems in reporting adverse events. (ii) Provide guidance on how to report adverse effects in reviews (PRISMA Harms Extension). (iii) Allow participants to practice methods of clear reporting of adverse events in reviews Description: Present the quality issues in reporting adverse effects using ‘Quality in reporting in systematic reviews of adverse events. A systematic review.” (15 minutes) Present a tool to assess the quality of reporting in reviews: The PRISMA Harms Extension + final checklist items. (15 minutes) The participants will break into small groups to apply the PRISMA Harms Extension checklist in systematic reviews of adverse events. They will assess 2-4 published reviews. The example reviews will include reviews with good reporting quality and reviews with fair (not good) reporting of adverse events (60 minutes). After each assessment the participants will discuss the application of the guidance and issues raised in assessing the reporting of adverse effects in reviews. This section will be an open for questions/discussion among participants.