Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34890351›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

The Utility of Different Data Standards to Document Adverse Drug Event Symptoms and Diagnoses: Mixed Methods Study.

Erina Chan, Serena S Small, Maeve E Wickham, Vicki Cheng, Ellen Balka, Corinne M Hohl

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. 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
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Observational
  7. 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.

Erina Chan *Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9909-5040
Serena S Small *Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3627-9042
Maeve E Wickham *Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0693-2223
Vicki Cheng *Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5030-9135
Ellen Balka *Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2094-7907
Corinne M Hohl *Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9210-7838

Funding

CIHR FDN-148475
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExisting systems to document adverse drug events often use free text data entry, which produces nonstandardized and unstructured data that are prone to misinterpretation. Standardized terminology may improve data quality; however, it is unclear which data standard is most appropriate for documenting adverse drug event symptoms and diagnoses.

objectiveThis study aims to compare the utility, strengths, and weaknesses of different data standards for documenting adverse drug event symptoms and diagnoses.

methodsWe performed a mixed methods substudy of a multicenter retrospective chart review. We reviewed the research records of prospectively diagnosed adverse drug events at 5 Canadian hospitals. A total of 2 pharmacy research assistants independently entered the symptoms and diagnoses for the adverse drug events using four standards: Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA), Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine (SNOMED) Clinical Terms, SNOMED Adverse Reaction (SNOMED ADR), and International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 11th Revision. Disagreements between research assistants regarding the case-specific utility of data standards were discussed until a consensus was reached. We used consensus ratings to determine the proportion of adverse drug events covered by a data standard and coded and analyzed field notes from the consensus sessions.

resultsWe reviewed 573 adverse drug events and found that MedDRA and ICD-11 had excellent coverage of adverse drug event symptoms and diagnoses. MedDRA had the highest number of matches between the research assistants, whereas ICD-11 had the fewest. SNOMED ADR had the lowest proportion of adverse drug event coverage. The research assistants were most likely to encounter terminological challenges with SNOMED ADR and usability challenges with ICD-11, whereas least likely to encounter challenges with MedDRA.

conclusionsUsability, comprehensiveness, and accuracy are important features of data standards for documenting adverse drug event symptoms and diagnoses. On the basis of our results, we recommend the use of MedDRA.

Indexed as

Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsCanadaHumansRetrospective Studiesadverse drug eventsdata standardshealth information technology

Identifiers

PMID34890351
PMCPMC8709916

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.