Drug side-effect research can be less picky

Researchers watching for drug side-effects can be less fussy about the types of studies they use, a UK analysis suggests.

Su Golder and colleagues from the University of York said there was 'considerable debate' about the best way of estimating adverse event risks from particular treatments. RCTs give unbiased estimates of treatment effects, but are rarely large enough to find rare, long-term effects and exclude many types of patients, they said.

However, studies using observational data are not randomised and are open to bias through confounding different variables, they added.

The researchers found there was no difference in adverse effect estimates from meta-analyses of either RCTs or observational studies. They argue their findings have important implications for the conduct of systematic reviews of harm.

'It may be preferable for systematic reviewers of adverse effects to evaluate a broad range of studies that can help build a complete picture of any potential harm and improve the generalisability of the review without loss of validity.'

Tom Moberly recommends

PLoS Medicine Online 2011

Read more

Have you registered with us yet?

Register now to enjoy more articles and free email bulletins

Register

Already registered?

Sign in

Before commenting please read our rules for commenting on articles.

If you see a comment you find offensive, you can flag it as inappropriate. In the top right-hand corner of an individual comment, you will see 'flag as inappropriate'. Clicking this prompts us to review the comment. For further information see our rules for commenting on articles.

comments powered by Disqus