IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0041174.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Jeppe Bennekou Schroll
  • Emma Maund
  • Peter C Gøtzsche

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeppe Bennekou Schroll & Emma Maund & Peter C Gøtzsche, 2012. "Challenges in Coding Adverse Events in Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(7), pages 1-7, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0041174
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0041174
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0041174
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0041174&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0041174?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0041174. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.