Literature Monitoring for Pharmacovigilance
https://doi.org/10.30895/2312-7821-2019-7-1-31-43
Abstract
Literature monitoring is a complicated aspect of pharmacovigilance. The guidelines on good practice of pharmacovigilance of the Eurasian Economic Union recommend the using of a biomedical reference database containing the maximum number of sources for the monitored drugs, which necessitates the selection of such a database. The aim of the paper is to compare the coverage and functionality of international databases of medical publications recommended for monitoring literature within pharmacovigilance in terms of coverage and functionality. The paper analyzes the coverage and presents the comparison of the results of the search in the databases Embase®, MEDLINE® and eLibrary for 35 drugs. It have been shown that the search in the Embase® database provides the maximum number of sources. In addition, the paper shows the applicability special PV Wizard functionality which facilitate the building of search strategies with high recall, sensitivity and compliance.
Keywords
About the Authors
A. G. KhudoshinNetherlands
Cand. Sci. (Сhem.), Elsevier Life Science Solution Business development manager in Russia, Iran and CIS countries
29 Radarweg, 1043 NX Amsterdam, The Netherlands
X. Xu
Netherlands
Embase & Quosa Marketing Manager Elsevier
29 Radarweg, 1043 NX Amsterdam, The Netherlands
B. K. Romanov
Russian Federation
Dr. Sci. (Med.), Assoc. Prof., Deputy General Director for Scientific Research
8/2 Petrovsky Blvd, Moscow 127051
References
1. Pontes H, Clément M, Rollason V. Safety signal detection: the relevance of literature review. Drug Saf. 2014;37(7):471–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-014-0180-9
2. Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA. 1998;279(15):1200–5. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.279.15.1200
3. Alsaleh FM, Alzaid SW, Abahussain EA, Bayoud T, Lemay J. Knowledge, attitude and practices of pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reaction reporting among pharmacists working in secondary and tertiary governmental hospitals in Kuwait. Saudi Pharm J. 2017;25(6):830–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsps.2016.12.004
4. Saha L. Role of Pharmacovigilance in Drug Development. Enliven: Pharmacovigil Drug Saf. 2014;1(1): e002.
5. Klose J, Fröhling S, Kroth E, Dobmeyer T, Nolting A. Safety information from spontaneous and literature adverse reaction reports: a comparison. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2013;47(2):248–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092861512463920
6. Loke YK, Derry S, Aronson JK. A comparison of three different sources of data in assessing the frequencies of adverse reactions to amiodarone. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;57(5):616–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0306-5251.2003.02055.x
7. dos Anjos J. New challenges in pharmacovigilance: the EMA’s Medical Literature Monitoring initiative. 2015.Available from: https://www.elsevier.com/connect/new-challenges-in-pharmacovigilance-the-emas-medical-literature-monitoring-initiative
8. Sampson M, McGowan J, Cogo E, Grimshaw J, Moher D, Lefebvre C. An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(9):944–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.012
9. Romanov BK, Alyautdin RN, Glagolev SV, Polivanov VA, Krasheninnikov AE. Preparation of a periodic safety update report. Bezopasnost’ i risk farmakoterapii = Safety and Risk of Pharmacotherapy. 2018;6(1):6–10 (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30895/2312-7821-2018-6-1-6-10
Review
For citations:
Khudoshin A.G., Xu X., Romanov B.K. Literature Monitoring for Pharmacovigilance. Safety and Risk of Pharmacotherapy. 2019;7(1):31-43. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30895/2312-7821-2019-7-1-31-43