Clinical utility of overviews on adverse events of pharmacological interventions

Date & Time
Monday, September 4, 2023, 12:30 PM - 2:00 PM
Location Name
Session Type
Overviews of reviews and scoping reviews
Sachse T1, Kanji S2, Thabet P3, Schmiedl S1, Guirguis F4, Thürmann P1, Sajwani S4, Gauthier M3, Lunny C5, Mathes T6, Pieper D7
1Witten/Herdecke University, Germany
2The Ottawa Hospital and Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Canada
3Hôpital Montfort and University of Ottawa, Canada
4The Ottawa Hospital, Canada
5Unity Health Toronto, Canada
6University Medical Center Göttingen, Germany
7Brandenburg Medical School, Germany

Background: Overviews are a relatively new type of evidence synthesis. Among others, one reason to conduct an overview is to investigate adverse events (AEs) associated with a healthcare intervention. Overviews aim to provide easily accessible information for healthcare decision-makers, including clinicians.
Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of overviews investigating AEs.
Methods: We used a sample of 27 overviews exclusively investigating drug-related adverse events published until 2021 identified in a prior project. We defined clinical utility as the extent to which overviews are perceived to be useful in clinical practice. Each included overview was assigned to one of seven pharmacological experts with expertise on the topic of the overview. The clinical utility and value of these overviews was determined using a self-developed assessment tool. This included four open-ended questions and a ranking of three clinical utility statements completed by clinicians. We calculated frequencies for the ranked clinical utility statements and coded the answers to the open-ended questions using an inductive approach.
Results: The overall agreement with the provided statements was high. According to the assessments, 67% of the included overviews generated new knowledge. In 93% of the assessments, the overviews were found to add value to the existing literature. The overviews were rated as more useful than the individual included systematic reviews (SRs) in 85% of the assessments. The answers to the open-ended questions revealed two key aspects of clinical utility in the included overviews. Firstly, it was considered useful that they provide a summary of available evidence (e.g., along with additional assessments or across different populations or in different settings that have not been evaluated together in the included SRs). Secondly, it was found useful if overviews conducted a new meta-analysis to answer specific research questions that had not been answered previously.
Conclusions: Overviews on drug-related AEs are considered valuable for clinical practice by clinicians. They can make available evidence on AEs more accessible and provide a comprehensive view of available evidence.
Patient, public and/or healthcare consumer involvement: Because this was a methodological project, there was no involvement.