PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15366974

Data quality management in pharmacovigilance.

Abstract

Pharmacovigilance relies on information gathered from the collection of individual case safety reports and other pharmacoepidemiological data. Even given the inherent limitations of spontaneous reports, the usefulness of this data source can be improved with good data quality management. Although under-reporting cannot be remedied this way, the negative impact of incomplete reports, which is another serious problem in pharmacovigilance, can be reduced. Quality management consists of quality planning, quality control, quality assurance and quality improvements. The pharmacovigilance data processing cycle starts with data collection and, in computerised systems, data entry; the next step is data storage and maintenance; followed by data selection, retrieval and manipulation. The resulting data output is analysed and assessed. Finally, conclusions are drawn and decisions made. The increased knowledge feeds back into the data processing cycle. Focussing on the first three steps of the data processing cycle, the different quality dimensions associated with these steps are described in this review, together with examples relevant to pharmacovigilance data. Functioning, well documented, and transparent quality management systems will benefit not only those involved in data collection, management and output production, but, ultimately, also the pharmacovigilance end users, the patients.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Marie Lindquist. 2004. Data quality management in pharmacovigilance.. https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200427120-00003

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Interrater agreement with a standard scheme for classifying medication errors.

PURPOSE: The interrater agreement for and reliability of the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP) index for categorizing medication errors were determined. METHODS: A letter was sent by the U.S. Pharmacopeia to all 550 contacts in the MEDMARX system user database. Participants were asked to categorize 27 medication scenarios using the NCC MERP index and were randomly assigned to one of three tools (the index alone, a paper-based algorithm, or a computer-based algorithm) to assist in categorization. Because the NCC MERP index accounts for harm and cost, and because categories could be interpreted as substantially similar, study results were analyzed after the nine error categories were collapsed to six. The interrater agreement was measured using Cohen's kappa value. RESULTS: Of 119 positive responses, 101 completed surveys were returned for a response rate of 85%. There were no significant differences in baseline demographics among the three groups. The overall interrater agreement for the participants, regardless of group assignment, was substantial at 0.61 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.81). There was no difference among the kappa values of the three study groups and the tools used to aid in medication error classification. When the index was condensed from nine categories to six, the interrater agreement increased with a kappa value of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.56-0.90). CONCLUSION: Overall interrater agreement for the NCC MERP index for categorizing medication errors was substantial. The tool provided to assist with categorization did not influence overall categorization. Further refining of the scale could improve the usefulness and validity of medication error categorization.

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems↗

Post Launch Monitoring of food products: what can be learned from pharmacovigilance.

Post Launch Monitoring (PLM) is one of the new approaches that are used in assessing the safety of novel foods or ingredients. It shares a close resemblance with procedures applied in the field of medicines, where Post Marketing Surveillance (PMS) has been carried out since the beginning of the 1960s. For this reason, Unilever and the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, maintaining the national reporting scheme in the Netherlands for adverse drug reactions, have been working together to optimize the Unilever's Post Launch Monitoring service. As a result of this cooperation a practical model for conducting PLM for food products has been developed. This model is also applicable for consumer products in general. The system allows for coding and assessing reports and the early detection of 'signals' of unintended health reactions. The methodological issues surrounding reporting of possible health reactions and practical issues surrounding coding and assessment of the reports that were encountered in the first period of this partnership are discussed. In addition, similarities and differences concerning PMS and PLM are described.

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems↗