Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Although many specialist adverse effects databases are available, our survey of 277 systematic reviews of adverse effects found that reviewers seldom searched beyond those databases used to identify clinical effectiveness evidence (principally MEDLINE and reference checking). This may be due to poor awareness of other data sources for adverse effects.
Objectives: We aimed to summarise the key features of sources of information on adverse drug effects. In particular, we assessed the nature of data, the accessibility, and the ease of use for each database so that we could describe the advantages and disadvantages of using these sources to identify adverse effects evidence.
Methods: To identify potentially relevant data sources of adverse effects, we looked at 277 systematic reviews of adverse effects. We also sought the opinions of experts in the field and contacted providers of electronic databases. Finally, we performed literature searches to identify any published evaluations of adverse effect databases. The data sources identified were assessed independently by an information specialist and a clinical pharmacologist who looked at: extent of coverage, format and nature of the available data, accessibility, and ease of use.
Results: We found that the data sources fell into three broad groups: (i) traditional bibliographic, (ii) collections of adverse reaction reports maintained by regulatory authorities and (iii) specialist books and journals for handsearching. Bibliographic databases can be expensive and difficult to search efficiently for adverse effects. Accessibility of regulatory authority databases and their formats vary considerably. Few evaluations of any of these sources exist, yet many of the sources uncovered here are potentially useful sources of adverse effects data.
Conclusions: A wide range of sources of information for adverse effects data are becoming more readily available. However,
difficulties remain in accessing the data and little evidence exists to evaluate the usefulness of these sources.
Objectives: We aimed to summarise the key features of sources of information on adverse drug effects. In particular, we assessed the nature of data, the accessibility, and the ease of use for each database so that we could describe the advantages and disadvantages of using these sources to identify adverse effects evidence.
Methods: To identify potentially relevant data sources of adverse effects, we looked at 277 systematic reviews of adverse effects. We also sought the opinions of experts in the field and contacted providers of electronic databases. Finally, we performed literature searches to identify any published evaluations of adverse effect databases. The data sources identified were assessed independently by an information specialist and a clinical pharmacologist who looked at: extent of coverage, format and nature of the available data, accessibility, and ease of use.
Results: We found that the data sources fell into three broad groups: (i) traditional bibliographic, (ii) collections of adverse reaction reports maintained by regulatory authorities and (iii) specialist books and journals for handsearching. Bibliographic databases can be expensive and difficult to search efficiently for adverse effects. Accessibility of regulatory authority databases and their formats vary considerably. Few evaluations of any of these sources exist, yet many of the sources uncovered here are potentially useful sources of adverse effects data.
Conclusions: A wide range of sources of information for adverse effects data are becoming more readily available. However,
difficulties remain in accessing the data and little evidence exists to evaluate the usefulness of these sources.