Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27804174›Full record

Trial reportPharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2017

Monitoring safety in a phase III real-world effectiveness trial: use of novel methodology in the Salford Lung Study.

Sue Collier, Catherine Harvey, Jill Brewster, Nawar Diar Bakerly, Hanaa F Elkhenini, Roxana Stanciu, Claire Williams, Jacqui Brereton, John P New, John McCrae and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Sue CollierRespiratory Research and Development, GlaxoSmithKline UK Ltd, Uxbridge, UK.
Catherine HarveyGlobal Clinical Safety & Pharmacovigilance, Safety Evaluation and Risk Management, GlaxoSmithKline UK Ltd, Uxbridge, UK.
Jill BrewsterRespiratory Centre of Excellence, GlaxoSmithKline UK Ltd, Uxbridge, UK.
Nawar Diar BakerlySalford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK.
Hanaa F ElkheniniSalford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK.
Roxana StanciuSalford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK.
Claire WilliamsCK Aspire, Chesterfield, UK.
Jacqui BreretonCK Aspire, Chesterfield, UK.
John P NewSalford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK.
John McCraeSalford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK.
Sheila McCorkindaleNHS Salford Clinical Commissioning Group, UK and NIHR Clinical Research Network: Greater Manchester, UK.
David LeatherGlobal Respiratory Franchise, GlaxoSmithKline UK Ltd, Uxbridge, UK.
GlaxoSmithKline (United Kingdom) · GBSalford Royal NHS Foundation Trust · GBCheshire West and Chester · GBNIHR Clinical Research Network · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Salford Lung Study (SLS) programme, encompassing two phase III pragmatic randomised controlled trials, was designed to generate evidence on the effectiveness of a once-daily treatment for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in routine primary care using electronic health records.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to describe and discuss the safety monitoring methodology and the challenges associated with ensuring patient safety in the SLS. Refinements to safety monitoring processes and infrastructure are also discussed. The study results are outside the remit of this paper. The results of the COPD study were published recently and a more in-depth exploration of the safety results will be the subject of future publications. ACHIEVEMENTS: The SLS used a linked database system to capture relevant data from primary care practices in Salford and South Manchester, two university hospitals and other national databases. Patient data were collated and analysed to create daily summaries that were used to alert a specialist safety team to potential safety events. Clinical research teams at participating general practitioner sites and pharmacies also captured safety events during routine consultations. Confidence in the safety monitoring processes over time allowed the methodology to be refined and streamlined without compromising patient safety or the timely collection of data. The information technology infrastructure also allowed additional details of safety information to be collected.

conclusionIntegration of multiple data sources in the SLS may provide more comprehensive safety information than usually collected in standard randomised controlled trials. Application of the principles of safety monitoring methodology from the SLS could facilitate safety monitoring processes for future pragmatic randomised controlled trials and yield important complementary safety and effectiveness data. © 2016 The Authors Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Indexed as

Research DesignAndrostadienesAsthmaBenzyl AlcoholsChlorobenzenesDatabases, FactualDrug CombinationsElectronic Health RecordsHumansMedical Record LinkagePrimary Health CarePulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveAndrostadienesBenzyl AlcoholsChlorobenzenesDrug Combinationsfluticasone furoate-vilanterol trifenatatedata linkageelectronic health recordspharmacoepidemiologypragmatic randomised controlled trialreal-world evidencesafety reportingSalford Lung Study

Identifiers

PMID27804174
PMCPMC5347861
OpenAlexW2547023985

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.