How useful are unpublished data from the Food and Drug Administration in meta-analysis?

Catherine H. MacLean, Sally C. Morton, Joshua J. Ofman, Elizabeth A. Roth, Paul G. Shekelle

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

46 Scopus citations

Abstract

The goals of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to ascertain whether studies of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) summarized in the FDA reviews are ultimately published, to compare the methodologic and population characteristics of studies summarized in the FDA reviews with those reported in peer reviewed literature, and to compare the pooled relative risk of dyspepsia from NSAIDs in each data source. Summary measures of risk difference were calculated with a random effects model; meta-regression was used to assess the effect of study covariates. Among 37 studies described in the FDA reviews, one was published. Sample size, gender distribution, indication for drug use, and methodologic quality did not vary significantly between the published and FDA data. The pooled risk ratio for dyspepsia obtained using published data (1.21) or FDA data (1.07) did not differ significantly or practically. Data from FDA reviews may be a viable data source for systematic reviews and meta-analyses but only after being subjected to the same methodologic scrutiny as published data.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)44-51
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume56
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2003
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Dyspepsia
  • Gastrointestinal toxicity
  • Meta-analysis
  • Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
  • Systematic review
  • Unpublished data

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'How useful are unpublished data from the Food and Drug Administration in meta-analysis?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this