Open AccessThe Utility of Different Data Standards to Document Adverse Drug Event Symptoms and Diagnoses: Mixed Methods Study
Author(s) -
Erina Chan,
Serena Small,
Maeve E. Wickham,
Vicki Cheng,
Ellen Balka,
Corinne M. Hohl
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
jmir. journal of medical internet research/journal of medical internet research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.446
H-Index - 142
eISSN - 1439-4456
pISSN - 1438-8871
DOI - 10.2196/27188
Subject(s) - meddra , snomed ct , medical diagnosis , medicine , pharmacovigilance , adverse effect , adverse event reporting system , terminology , concordance , medline , pathology , linguistics , philosophy , political science , law
Background Existing 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. Objective This study aims to compare the utility, strengths, and weaknesses of different data standards for documenting adverse drug event symptoms and diagnoses. Methods We 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. Results We 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. Conclusions Usability, 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.