Cargando…

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

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schroll, Jeppe Bennekou, Maund, Emma, Gøtzsche, Peter C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3401103/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22911755
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0041174
_version_ 1782238565188501504
author Schroll, Jeppe Bennekou
Maund, Emma
Gøtzsche, Peter C.
author_facet Schroll, Jeppe Bennekou
Maund, Emma
Gøtzsche, Peter C.
author_sort Schroll, Jeppe Bennekou
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3401103
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34011032012-07-30 Challenges in Coding Adverse Events in Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review Schroll, Jeppe Bennekou Maund, Emma Gøtzsche, Peter C. PLoS One Research Article 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. Public Library of Science 2012-07-20 /pmc/articles/PMC3401103/ /pubmed/22911755 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0041174 Text en Schroll et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Schroll, Jeppe Bennekou
Maund, Emma
Gøtzsche, Peter C.
Challenges in Coding Adverse Events in Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review
title Challenges in Coding Adverse Events in Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review
title_full Challenges in Coding Adverse Events in Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review
title_fullStr Challenges in Coding Adverse Events in Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed Challenges in Coding Adverse Events in Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review
title_short Challenges in Coding Adverse Events in Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review
title_sort challenges in coding adverse events in clinical trials: a systematic review
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3401103/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22911755
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0041174
work_keys_str_mv AT schrolljeppebennekou challengesincodingadverseeventsinclinicaltrialsasystematicreview
AT maundemma challengesincodingadverseeventsinclinicaltrialsasystematicreview
AT gøtzschepeterc challengesincodingadverseeventsinclinicaltrialsasystematicreview