SwePub
Sök i LIBRIS databas

  Utökad sökning

WFRF:(van Geest M)
 

Sökning: WFRF:(van Geest M) > (2020-2023) > Inadequate safety r...

Inadequate safety reporting in the publications of randomised clinical trials in irritable bowel syndrome : drug versus probiotic interventions

van der Geest, A. M. (författare)
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Athena Institute, De Boelelaan, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Schukking, I. (författare)
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Athena Institute, De Boelelaan, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Brummer, Robert Jan, 1957- (författare)
Örebro universitet,Institutionen för medicinska vetenskaper,Nutrition-Gut-Brain Interactions Research Centre
visa fler...
Pieterse, H. (författare)
University of Ghent, Heymans Institute of Pharmacology, Ghent, Belgium
van den Nieuwboer, M. (författare)
Stichting Darmgezondheid, Ede, the Netherlands
van de Burgwal, L. H. M. (författare)
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Athena Institute, De Boelelaan, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Larsen, O. F. A. (författare)
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Athena Institute, De Boelelaan, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
visa färre...
 (creator_code:org_t)
Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2022
2022
Engelska.
Ingår i: Beneficial Microbes. - : Wageningen Academic Publishers. - 1876-2883 .- 1876-2891. ; 13:3, s. 195-204
  • Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)
Abstract Ämnesord
Stäng  
  • Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) offer a unique opportunity to obtain controlled efficacy and safety data to support clinical decisions. However, most RCT reporting has a stronger focus on efficacy rather than safety. This study aimed to identify the safety profile of both probiotic and drug interventions in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). In connection to this paper, an accompanying paper was published in which a meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of probiotic interventions compared to that of drug interventions in IBS. Together, these two studies provide a first assessment regarding the feasibility to determine a burden to benefit ratio for both probiotic and drug interventions in IBS. RCTs including participants (>18 years old) with IBS and comparing probiotic or drugs interventions with control groups were identified by a systematic search of MEDLINE (January 2015 - Jan 2021). Reported safety profiles in drug studies were completer and more detailed as compared with studies on probiotics. Several inconsistencies in safety reporting were identified between and within drug and probiotic studies, such as: didn't report on safety; only reported adverse reactions (ARs) or adverse events (AEs) with a certain severity; didn't report the total number of AEs; didn't split in the control- or experimental arm; didn't specify AEs; and used different thresholds for 'common' AEs. Hence, it is difficult to compare safety data from drug and probiotic RCTs across and between different studies. On the current approaches to safety reporting, we could not establish an unambiguous safety profile for neither probiotic and drug interventions in IBS. These shortcomings hamper a critical comparison of the burden to benefit ratio for IBS intervention.

Ämnesord

MEDICIN OCH HÄLSOVETENSKAP  -- Klinisk medicin -- Gastroenterologi (hsv//swe)
MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES  -- Clinical Medicine -- Gastroenterology and Hepatology (hsv//eng)

Nyckelord

Adverse events
burden to benefit ratio
safety profile

Publikations- och innehållstyp

ref (ämneskategori)
for (ämneskategori)

Hitta via bibliotek

Till lärosätets databas

Sök utanför SwePub

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

 
pil uppåt Stäng

Kopiera och spara länken för att återkomma till aktuell vy