Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34185021›Full record

ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2021

The Use of Social Media in Detecting Drug Safety-Related New Black Box Warnings, Labeling Changes, or Withdrawals: Scoping Review.

Jae-Young Lee, Yae-Seul Lee, Dong Hyun Kim, Han Sol Lee, Bo Ram Yang, Myeong Gyu Kim

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Fine-Tuning BERT Models to Classify Misinformation on Garlic and COVID-19 on Twitter.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Engaging PatientsFrontiers in pharmacology · 2022
    Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors.

Jae-Young Lee *College of Pharmacy, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-8093-043X
Yae-Seul Lee *College of Pharmacy, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-1172-2370
Dong Hyun KimCollege of Pharmacy, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-6827-8170
Han Sol LeeCollege of Pharmacy, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-7935-0449
Bo Ram YangCollege of Pharmacy, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-8771-8829
Myeong Gyu KimCollege of Pharmacy, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-5593-7672

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial media has become a new source for obtaining real-world data on adverse drug reactions. Many studies have investigated the use of social media to detect early signals of adverse drug reactions. However, the trustworthiness of signals derived from social media is questionable. To confirm this, a confirmatory study with a positive control (eg, new black box warnings, labeling changes, or withdrawals) is required.

objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the use of social media in detecting new black box warnings, labeling changes, or withdrawals in advance.

methodsThis scoping review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. A researcher searched PubMed and EMBASE in January 2021. Original studies analyzing black box warnings, labeling changes, or withdrawals from social media were selected, and the results of the studies were summarized.

resultsA total of 14 studies were included in this scoping review. Most studies (8/14, 57.1%%) collected data from a single source, and 10 (71.4%) used specialized health care social networks and forums. The analytical methods used in these studies varied considerably. Three studies (21.4%) manually annotated posts, while 5 (35.7%) adopted machine learning algorithms. Nine studies (64.2%) concluded that social media could detect signals 3 months to 9 years before action from regulatory authorities. Most of these studies (8/9, 88.9%) were conducted on specialized health care social networks and forums. On the contrary, 5 (35.7%) studies yielded modest or negative results. Of these, 2 (40%) used generic social networking sites, 2 (40%) used specialized health care networks and forums, and 1 (20%) used both generic social networking sites and specialized health care social networks and forums. The most recently published study recommends not using social media for pharmacovigilance. Several challenges remain in using social media for pharmacovigilance regarding coverage, data quality, and analytic processing.

conclusionsSocial media, along with conventional pharmacovigilance measures, can be used to detect signals associated with new black box warnings, labeling changes, or withdrawals. Several challenges remain; however, social media will be useful for signal detection of frequently mentioned drugs in specialized health care social networks and forums. Further studies are required to advance natural language processing and mine real-world data on social media.

Indexed as

Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsPharmaceutical PreparationsSocial MediaDrug LabelingHumansPharmacovigilancePharmaceutical Preparationsadverse eventblack box warningdetectpharmacovigilancereal-world datareviewsafetysocial mediawithdrawal of approval

Identifiers

PMID34185021
PMCPMC8277336

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.