Challenges in Coding Adverse Events in Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review

被引:51
作者
Schroll, Jeppe Bennekou [1 ]
Maund, Emma [1 ]
Gotzsche, Peter C. [1 ]
机构
[1] Rigshosp, Nord Cochrane Ctr, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
关键词
MEDICAL DICTIONARY; MEDDRA;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0041174
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Background: Misclassification of adverse events in clinical trials can sometimes have serious consequences. Therefore, each of the many steps involved, from a patient's adverse experience to presentation in tables in publications, should be as standardised as possible, minimising the scope for interpretation. Adverse events are categorised by a predefined dictionary, e.g. MedDRA, which is updated biannually with many new categories. The objective of this paper is to study interobserver variation and other challenges of coding. Methods: Systematic review using PRISMA. We searched PubMed, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. All studies were screened for eligibility by two authors. Results: Our search returned 520 unique studies of which 12 were included. Only one study investigated interobserver variation. It reported that 12% of the codes were evaluated differently by two coders. Independent physicians found that 8% of all the codes deviated from the original description. Other studies found that product summaries could be greatly affected by the choice of dictionary. With the introduction of MedDRA, it seems to have become harder to identify adverse events statistically because each code is divided in subgroups. To account for this, lumping techniques have been developed but are rarely used, and guidance on when to use them is vague. An additional challenge is that adverse events are censored if they already occurred in the run-in period of a trial. As there are more than 26 ways of determining whether an event has already occurred, this can lead to bias, particularly because data analysis is rarely performed blindly. Conclusion: There is a lack of evidence that coding of adverse events is a reliable, unbiased and reproducible process. The increase in categories has made detecting adverse events harder, potentially compromising safety. It is crucial that readers of medical publications are aware of these challenges. Comprehensive interobserver studies are needed.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 21 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], MEDDRA TERM SEL POIN
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2004, INT J PHARM MED
[3]  
[Anonymous], MEDDRA DAT RETR PRES
[4]  
[Anonymous], INT J PHARM MED
[5]  
Brown E. G., 1996, Pharmaceutical Medicine (London), V10, P111
[6]   Using MedDRA - Implications for risk management [J].
Brown, EG .
DRUG SAFETY, 2004, 27 (08) :591-602
[7]   Methods and pitfalls in searching drug safety databases utilising the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) [J].
Brown, EG .
DRUG SAFETY, 2003, 26 (03) :145-158
[8]   Effects of coding dictionary on signal generation - A consideration of use of MedDRA compared with WHO-ART [J].
Brown, EG .
DRUG SAFETY, 2002, 25 (06) :445-452
[9]   A risky business: the detection of adverse drug reactions in clinical trials and post-marketing exercises [J].
Corrigan, OP .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2002, 55 (03) :497-507
[10]   All clinical trials must be reported in detail and made publicly available [J].
Furukawa, TA .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2004, 329 (7466) :626-626