A systematic review by researchers from Canada, the U.K., and China finds that the 4,644 systematic reviews studied “compounded the poor reporting of harms data in primary studies by failing to report on harms or doing so inadequately.” The study, published in the British Medical Journal, proposes the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) standard for correcting the problem.
Zorzela, L., Golder, S., Liu, Y., Pilkington, K., et al; Quality of reporting in systematic reviews of adverse events: systematic review. British Medical Journal. Online January 8, 2014. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f7668
