ALEGRE DEL REY, EJ    GRUPO COORDINADOR DE GENESIS-SEFH et al. Expressions and criteria that could be improved in the writing of reports for drug evaluation and therapeutic positioning. []. , 31, 2, pp.219-223.   16--2021. ISSN 1699-714X.  https://dx.doi.org/10.4321/s1699-714x2021000200022.

In the review of reports for evaluation and positioning of new drugs in a multidisciplinary setting, some usual errors of expression or criteria are observed. Most of them are related to the consideration of "differences" or non-significant trends, abuse of the relative risk reduction, errors in the assessment of results by subgroups without calculating the statistical interaction, misinterpretation of indirect comparisons, excess in the assessment of clinical relevance with subclinical variables and biased statements in the safety section, among others. Ambiguity or inhibition in positioning is also often observed, especially in situations of precariousness in the available evidence. This work summarizes such errors, clarifies some common terms and proposes alternative expressions or criteria that are considered preferable, in order to offer evaluations for decision-making focused on the benefit of patients.

: Drug evaluation; medical writing; network meta-analysis; risk assessment; proportional hazards model.

        · |     · |     · ( pdf )