Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T18:52:40.045Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE CONTRIBUTION OF DIFFERENT INFORMATION SOURCES TO IDENTIFY ADVERSE EFFECTS OF A MEDICAL DEVICE: A CASE STUDY USING A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF SPINAL FUSION

Part of: Special Collection - Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2014

Su Golder ,
Kath Wright  and
Mark Rodgers
Su Golder
Affiliation:
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), University of York, [email protected]
Kath Wright
Affiliation:
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), University of York, [email protected]
Mark Rodgers
Affiliation:
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), University of York, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: The most effective sources to search to identify adverse effects data for medical devices are currently unknown.

Methods: The included studies from a systematic review of the safety of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) for spinal fusion were used for analysis. For each source searched, a record was made for each relevant publication of whether it was retrieved by the search strategy used and whether it was available in the database but not retrieved. To account for multiple publications of the same study, a record was made of the relevant studies identified. The sensitivity, precision, and number needed to read were calculated as well as the minimum combination of sources to identify all the publications or studies.

Results: There were eighty-two publications (forty-nine studies) included in the systematic review. Only one article was available in a database searched but not retrieved by our search strategy. Science Citation Index (SCI) and EMBASE both achieved the highest sensitivity (62 percent), followed closely by MEDLINE/PubMED (56 percent). With the search strategies used, the minimum combination of sources needed to identify all the publications was SCI, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and either MEDLINE or PubMED, in addition to reference checking, contacting authors and an automated current awareness service. In relation to identifying all the relevant studies, the minimum combination of studies was similar with the exclusion of CENTRAL.

Conclusions: To identify all the relevant publications or studies included in this case study systematic review, several different sources needed to be searched.

Keywords

Adverse effectsSystematic reviewMeta-analysisInformation storage and retrievalBibliographic databases
Type
Methods
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , October 2014 , pp. 423 - 429
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. BBC News. Breast implants: UK to review risk assessment data. 2011 [updated 2011]. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16373140 (accessed August 2, 2013).Google Scholar
2. BBC News. MHRA: Metal hip implant patients need life-long checks. 2012 [updated 2012]. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17192520 (accessed August 2, 2013).Google Scholar
3. Cohen, D. Europeans are left to their own devices. BMJ. 2011;342:d2748.Google Scholar
4. Campbell, B, Stainthorpe, AC, Longson, CM. How can we get high quality routine data to monitor the safety of devices and procedures? BMJ. 2013;346:f2782.Google Scholar
5. Cohen, D. Faulty hip implant shows up failings of EU regulation. BMJ. 2012;345:e7163.Google Scholar
6. Avorn, J. Regulation of devices. BMJ. 2010;341:c5730.Google Scholar
7. Golder, S, Loke, YK, Zorzela, L. Some improvements are apparent in identifying adverse effects in systematic reviews from 1994 to 2011. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:253–260.Google Scholar
8. Golder, S, Loke, YK. The contribution of different information sources for adverse effects data. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:133–137.Google Scholar
9. Golder, S, Loke, YK. Sources of information on adverse effects: A systematic review. Health Info Libr J. 2010;27:176–190.Google Scholar
10. Rodgers, MA, Brown, JV, Heirs, MK, et al. Reporting of industry funded study outcome data: Comparison of confidential and published data on the safety and effectiveness of rhBMP-2 for spinal fusion. BMJ. 2013;346:f3981.Google Scholar
11. Simmonds, MC, Brown, JV, Heirs, MK, et al. Safety and effectiveness of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 for spinal fusion: A meta-analysis of individual-participant data. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:877–889.Google Scholar
12. Tanon, A, Champagne, F, Contandriopoulos, A-P, et al Patient safety and systematic reviews: Finding papers indexed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19:452–461.Google Scholar
13. Sampson, M, Tetzlaff, J, Urquhart, C. Precision of healthcare systematic review searches in a cross-sectional sample. Res Synth Methods. 2011;2:119–125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Bagnall, AM, Jones, L, Glanville, J, Kleijnen, J, eds. Assessing adverse events in a systematic review of atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia. 4th Symposium on Systematic Reviews: Pushing the Boundaries, July 2002; Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
15. Biarez, O, Sarrut, B, Doreau, CG, Etienne, J. Comparison and evaluation of nine bibliographic databases concerning adverse drug reactions. DICP. 1991;25:1062–1065.Google Scholar
16. Golder, S, McIntosh, HM, Duffy, S, Glanville, J. Developing efficient search strategies to identify reports of adverse effects in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Health Info Libr J. 2006;23:3–12.Google Scholar
17. Madden, M, MacDonald, A. An evaluation and comparison of nine drug information retrieval services. Drug Inf J. 1977;11:47–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Sodha, RV, Van Amelsvoort, T. Multi-database searches in biomedicine: Citation duplication and novelty assessment using carbamazepine as an example. J Info Sci. 1994;20:139–141.Google Scholar
19. Stone, VL, Fishman, DL, Frese, DB. Searching online and Web-based resources for information on natural products used as drugs. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1998;86:523–527.Google Scholar
20. Scientific. T. Derwent Drug File: Definitive drug journal and conference information. Thomson Scientific; 2004 [updated 2004]. http://scientific.thomson.com/media/dw/productpdfs/ddf-compare.pdf (accessed September 20, 2008).Google Scholar
21. Van Putte, N. A comparison of four biomedical databases for the retrieval of drug literature. Health Inf lib. 1991;3:119–127.Google Scholar
22. Verheijen-Voogd, C, Mathijsen, A. A contribution to the comparison of the usefulness of the data bases of Excerpta Medica and MEDLARS in biomedical literature retrieval. Aslib Proc. 1974;26:136–151.Google Scholar
23. Beyer, F, Wright, K. Can we prioritise which databases to search? A case study using a systematic review of frozen shoulder management. Health Info Libr J. 2012;30:49–58.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Golder Supplementary Material

Figure S1

Download Golder Supplementary Material(File)
File 15.6 KB
Supplementary material: File

Golder Supplementary Material

Figure S2

Download Golder Supplementary Material(File)
File 15.4 KB
Supplementary material: File

Golder Supplementary Material

Table S1

Download Golder Supplementary Material(File)
File 14.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Golder Supplementary Material

Table S2

Download Golder Supplementary Material(File)
File 13.9 KB
Supplementary material: File

Golder Supplementary Material

Table S3

Download Golder Supplementary Material(File)
File 15.4 KB