Health Technology Assessment Volume: 8, Issue: 36, Published in September 2004

Introduction For any health intervention, accurate knowledge of both benefits and harms is needed. Systematic reviews often compound poor reporting of harms in primary studies by failing to report harms or doing so inadequately. While the PRISMA statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) helps systematic review authors ensure complete and transparent reporting, it is focused mainly on efficacy. Thus, a PRISMA harms checklist has been developed to improve harms reporting in systematic reviews, promoting a more balanced assessment of benefits and harms. Methods A development strategy, endorsed by the EQUATOR Network and existing reporting guidelines (including the PRISMA statement, PRISMA for abstracts, and PRISMA for protocols), was used. After the development of a draft checklist of items, a modified Delphi process was initiated. The Delphi consisted of three rounds of electronic feedback followed by an in-person meeting. Results The PRISMA harms checklist contains four essential reporting elements to be added to the original PRISMA statement to improve harms reporting in reviews. These are reported in the title (“Specifically mention ‘harms’ or other related terms, or the harm of interest in the review”), synthesis of results (“Specify how zero events were handled, if relevant”), study characteristics (“Define each harm addressed, how it was ascertained (eg, patient report, active search), and over what time period”), and synthesis of results (“Describe any assessment of possible causality”). Additional guidance regarding existing PRISMA items was developed to demonstrate relevance when synthesising information about harms. Conclusion The PRISMA harms checklist identifies a minimal set of items to be reported when reviewing adverse events. This guideline extension is intended to improve harms reporting in systematic reviews, whether harms are a primary or secondary outcome.

Objectives To assess the association between maternal glucose concentrations and adverse perinatal outcomes in women without gestational or existing diabetes and to determine whether clear thresholds for identifying women at risk of perinatal outcomes can be identified. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies and control arms of randomised trials. Data sources Databases including Medline and Embase were searched up to October 2014 and combined with individual participant data from two additional birth cohorts. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Studies including pregnant women with oral glucose tolerance (OGTT) or challenge (OGCT) test results, with data on at least one adverse perinatal outcome. Appraisal and data extraction Glucose test results were extracted for OGCT (50 g) and OGTT (75 g and 100 g) at fasting and one and two hour post-load timings. Data were extracted on induction of labour; caesarean and instrumental delivery; pregnancy induced hypertension; pre-eclampsia; macrosomia; large for gestational age; preterm birth; birth injury; and neonatal hypoglycaemia. Risk of bias was assessed with a modified version of the critical appraisal skills programme and quality in prognostic studies tools. Results 25 reports from 23 published studies and two individual participant data cohorts were included, with up to 207 172 women (numbers varied by the test and outcome analysed in the meta-analyses). Overall most studies were judged as having a low risk of bias. There were positive linear associations with caesarean section, induction of labour, large for gestational age, macrosomia, and shoulder dystocia for all glucose exposures across the distribution of glucose concentrations. There was no clear evidence of a threshold effect. In general, associations were stronger for fasting concentration than for post-load concentration. For example, the odds ratios for large for gestational age per 1 mmol/L increase of fasting and two hour post-load glucose concentrations (after a 75 g OGTT) were 2.15 (95% confidence interval 1.60 to 2.91) and 1.20 (1.13 to 1.28), respectively. Heterogeneity was low between studies in all analyses. Conclusions This review and meta-analysis identified a large number of studies in various countries. There was a graded linear association between fasting and post-load glucose concentration across the whole glucose distribution and most adverse perinatal outcomes in women without pre-existing or gestational diabetes. The lack of a clear threshold at which risk increases means that decisions regarding thresholds for diagnosing gestational diabetes are somewhat arbitrary. Research should now investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of applying different glucose thresholds for diagnosis of gestational diabetes on perinatal and longer term outcomes. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42013004608

Health Technology Assessment Volume: 8, Issue: 49, Published in December 2004

There is considerable debate as to the relative merits of using randomised controlled trial (RCT) data as opposed to observational data in systematic reviews of adverse effects. This meta-analysis of meta-analyses aimed to assess the level of agreement or disagreement in the estimates of harm derived from meta-analysis of RCTs as compared to meta-analysis of observational studies. Searches were carried out in ten databases in addition to reference checking, contacting experts, citation searches, and hand-searching key journals, conference proceedings, and Web sites. Studies were included where a pooled relative measure of an adverse effect (odds ratio or risk ratio) from RCTs could be directly compared, using the ratio of odds ratios, with the pooled estimate for the same adverse effect arising from observational studies. Nineteen studies, yielding 58 meta-analyses, were identified for inclusion. The pooled ratio of odds ratios of RCTs compared to observational studies was estimated to be 1.03 (95% confidence interval 0.93–1.15). There was less discrepancy with larger studies. The symmetric funnel plot suggests that there is no consistent difference between risk estimates from meta-analysis of RCT data and those from meta-analysis of observational studies. In almost all instances, the estimates of harm from meta-analyses of the different study designs had 95% confidence intervals that overlapped (54/58, 93%). In terms of statistical significance, in nearly two-thirds (37/58, 64%), the results agreed (both studies showing a significant increase or significant decrease or both showing no significant difference). In only one meta-analysis about one adverse effect was there opposing statistical significance. Empirical evidence from this overview indicates that there is no difference on average in the risk estimate of adverse effects of an intervention derived from meta-analyses of RCTs and meta-analyses of observational studies. This suggests that systematic reviews of adverse effects should not be restricted to specific study types. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary