Ratio of odds ratios of adverse effects in study design comparisons.

<p>Ratio of odds ratios of adverse effects in study design comparisons.</p

Funnel plot of distribution of RORs from meta-analyses of cohort/cross-sectional studies compared to case-control studies.

<p>Funnel plot of distribution of RORs from meta-analyses of cohort/cross-sectional studies compared to case-control studies.</p

Flow chart for included studies.

<p>Flow chart for included studies.</p

Confidence interval overlap and agreement between study designs.

<p>Confidence interval overlap and agreement between study designs.</p

Percentage of participants in published and unpublished studies in the meta-analyses.

<p>Eyding 2010a [<a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002127#pmed.1002127.ref020" target="_blank">20</a>] examines studies of reboxetine versus placebo and Eyding 2010b [<a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002127#pmed.1002127.ref020" target="_blank">20</a>] examines studies of reboxetine versus selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).</p

Additional file 2: Appendix 1. of A systematic scoping review of the evidence for consumer involvement in organisations undertaking systematic reviews: focus on Cochrane

List of excluded or unobtainable studies. (DOCX 15 kb

Percentage of matched published and unpublished studies with adverse event information.

<p>*Classified adverse events information as either “completely reported” versus “incompletely reported.” Incompletely reported adverse events could lack numerical data or include only selected adverse events, for example. Maund 2014a [<a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002127#pmed.1002127.ref016" target="_blank">16</a>] and Maund 2014b [<a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002127#pmed.1002127.ref016" target="_blank">16</a>] compare published trials to registry reports and clinical study reports (CSRs), respectively. Riveros 2013 [<a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002127#pmed.1002127.ref035" target="_blank">35</a>] compares trials with number of adverse events reported and classifies adverse events information as either “completely reported” or “incompletely reported.”</p

Flow diagram for included studies.

<p>Ninety-three articles were excluded based on full-text screening. The excluded studies tended not to include adverse events data or did not present relevant data for both published and unpublished articles (<a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002127#pmed.1002127.s006" target="_blank">S2 Table</a>).</p

Adverse events in matched published and unpublished sources.

<p>In circumstances where multiple AEs were presented, the largest category is included (for example, all AEs or all SAEs). Pranić 2015 [<a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002127#pmed.1002127.ref034" target="_blank">34</a>] and Tang 2015 [<a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002127#pmed.1002127.ref040" target="_blank">40</a>] are excluded from the figure because, although the authors state that they identified a higher number of adverse events in unpublished sources than published, the actual figures were not presented. Le Noury 2015a [<a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002127#pmed.1002127.ref028" target="_blank">28</a>] and 2015b [<a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002127#pmed.1002127.ref028" target="_blank">28</a>] compare AEs for different drugs. Maund 2014a [<a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002127#pmed.1002127.ref016" target="_blank">16</a>] and Maund 2014b [<a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002127#pmed.1002127.ref016" target="_blank">16</a>] compare published trials to registry reports and CSRs, respectively. In Jefferson 2011 [<a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002127#pmed.1002127.ref026" target="_blank">26</a>], the number of adverse events is small (10 events) and therefore does not show up in Fig 4 given the scale of the <i>y</i>-axis.</p

Forest plots comparing pooled estimates for adverse events from all studies combined (published and unpublished) against published and unpublished studies alone.

<p>There were also two systematic reviews identified in Potthast 2014 [<a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002127#pmed.1002127.ref033" target="_blank">33</a>] in which unpublished additional trial data led to a new comparison not reported in the systematic reviews, which could not be represented here.</p