Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32448248›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2020

Implementation and comparison of two text mining methods with a standard pharmacovigilance method for signal detection of medication errors.

Nadine Kadi Eskildsen, Robert Eriksson, Sten B Christensen, Tamilla Stine Aghassipour, Mikael Juul Bygsø, Søren Brunak, Suzanne Lisbet Hansen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Nadine Kadi EskildsenDepartment of Safety Surveillance, Global Safety, Novo Nordisk A/S, Bagsværd, Denmark.
Robert ErikssonDisease Systems Biology Program, Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. robert.eriksson@cpr.ku.dk.ORCID 0000-0002-4946-6456
Sten B ChristensenGlobal Information & Analysis, Novo Nordisk A/S, Bagsværd, Denmark.
Tamilla Stine AghassipourGlobal Information & Analysis, Novo Nordisk A/S, Bagsværd, Denmark.
Mikael Juul BygsøDepartment of Safety Surveillance, Global Safety, Novo Nordisk A/S, Bagsværd, Denmark.
Søren BrunakDisease Systems Biology Program, Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Suzanne Lisbet HansenDepartment of Safety Surveillance, Global Safety, Novo Nordisk A/S, Bagsværd, Denmark. szlh@novonordisk.com.
Novo Nordisk (Denmark) · DKUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

Novo Nordisk Fonden (DK) NNF14CC0001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedication errors have been identified as the most common preventable cause of adverse events. The lack of granularity in medication error terminology has led pharmacovigilance experts to rely on information in individual case safety reports' (ICSRs) codes and narratives for signal detection, which is both time consuming and labour intensive. Thus, there is a need for complementary methods for the detection of medication errors from ICSRs. The aim of this study is to evaluate the utility of two natural language processing text mining methods as complementary tools to the traditional approach followed by pharmacovigilance experts for medication error signal detection.

methodsThe safety surveillance advisor (SSA) method, I2E text mining and University of Copenhagen Center for Protein Research (CPR) text mining, were evaluated for their ability to extract cases containing a type of medication error where patients extracted insulin from a prefilled pen or cartridge by a syringe. A total of 154,209 ICSRs were retrieved from Novo Nordisk's safety database from January 1987 to February 2018. Each method was evaluated by recall (sensitivity) and precision (positive predictive value).

resultsWe manually annotated 2533 ICSRs to investigate whether these contained the sought medication error. All these ICSRs were then analysed using the three methods. The recall was 90.4, 88.1 and 78.5% for the CPR text mining, the SSA method and the I2E text mining, respectively. Precision was low for all three methods ranging from 3.4% for the SSA method to 1.9 and 1.6% for the CPR and I2E text mining methods, respectively.

conclusionsText mining methods can, with advantage, be used for the detection of complex signals relying on information found in unstructured text (e.g., ICSR narratives) as standardised and both less labour-intensive and time-consuming methods compared to traditional pharmacovigilance methods. The employment of text mining in pharmacovigilance need not be limited to the surveillance of potential medication errors but can be used for the ongoing regulatory requests, e.g., obligations in risk management plans and may thus be utilised broadly for signal detection and ongoing surveillance activities.

Indexed as

Data MiningDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsMedication ErrorsPharmacovigilanceAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsFemaleHumansMaleReference StandardsIndividual case reportsMedication errorsNatural language processingPharmacovigilancePrecisionRecallSignal detectionText mining

Identifiers

PMID32448248
PMCPMC7245808
OpenAlexW3026282681

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.