Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Data Quality Management in Pharmacovigilance

  • Leading Article
  • Published:
Drug Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Table I
Table II

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Strom BL. What is pharmacoepidemiology? In: Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. 3rd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2000: 3–15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. WHO. The importance of pharmacovigilance: safety monitoring of medicinal products. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2002

  3. Lindquist M. Seeing and observing in pharmacovigilance: achievements and prospects in worldwide drug safety [doctoral thesis]. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  4. Edwards IR. Adverse drug reactions. In: van Boxtel CJ, Santoso B, Edwards IR, editors. Drug benefits and risks: International text book of clinical pharmacology. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd, 2001: 195–209

    Google Scholar 

  5. Mecella M, Scannapieco M, Virgillito A, et al. Managing data quality in cooperative information systems. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems (CoopIS 2002); USA: Springer-Verlag, 2002; 486–502

    Google Scholar 

  6. Redman TC. Data quality for the information age. Norwood: Artech House Inc, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  7. Uehling MD. Is data quality really job 1? [online]. Available from URL: http://www.bio-itworld.com/news/021003_report1988.html [Accessed 2003 Sep 25]

  8. Wand Y, Wang RY. Anchoring data quality dimensions in ontological foundations. Commun ACM 1996; 39(11): 86–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Strong DM, Lee YW, Wang RY. Data quality in context. Commun ACM 1997; 40(5): 103–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Tull PG. Managing data quality within BT: a feasibility study [master’s thesis]. Leicester: Leicester University, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  11. Peachey J. From pharmacovigilance to pharmacoperformance. Drug Saf 2002; 25(6): 399–405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lindquist M. The WHO programme for international drug monitoring: the present and future. In: Mitchard M, editor. Electronic communication technologies. Bufffalo (NY); Interpharm Press Inc., 1998: 527-49

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bortnichak EA, Wise RP, Salive ME, et al. Proactive safety surveillance. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2001; 10(3): 191–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Golden MS. An incident reporting system: documented at the point of service. J Healthc Risk Manag 1998; 18(2): 18–26

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lumpkin MM. International pharmacovigilance: developing cooperation to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Pharmacol Toxicol 2000; 86Suppl. 1: 20–2

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Stergachis AS. Record linkage studies for postmarketing drug surveillance: data quality and validity considerations. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1988; 22(2): 157–61

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Spindler P, Seiler JP. Quality management of pharmacology and safety pharmacology studies. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 2002; 16(2): 83–90

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Edwards IR. Spontaneous ADR reporting and drug safety signal induction in perspective: to honour Professor Jens Schou. Pharmacol Toxicol 2000; 86Suppl. 1: 16–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. 3rd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mann R, Andrews E, editors. Pharmacovigilance. 1st ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  21. Girard M. Data quality in post-marketing surveillance. Adverse Drug React Acute Poisoning Rev 1986; 5(2): 87–95

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. O’Neill RT. Biostatistical considerations in pharmacovigilance and pharmacoepidemiology: linking quantitative risk assessment in pre-market licensure application safety data, postmarket alert reports and formal epidemiological studies. Stat Med 1998; 17(15-16): 1851–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Edwards IR, Wiholm B-E, Martinez C. Concepts in risk-benefit assessment. Drug Saf 1996; 15(1): 1–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Meyboom RHB, Egberts ACG, Edwards IR, et al. Principles of signal detection in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf 1997; 16(6): 3355–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 9000. Quality management systems: fundamentals and vocabulary. 2nd ed. Geneva: ISO, 2000

  26. Redman TC. Why care about data quality? In: Data quality for the information age. Norwood: Artech House Inc., 1996: 3–16

    Google Scholar 

  27. English LP. Help for data quality problems (ensuring data quality in data warehouses). Information Week 1996 Oct 7; (600): 53

    Google Scholar 

  28. CIOMS. Harmonization of data fields for electronic transmission of case-report information internationally. Public report. Geneva: CIOMS, 1995

  29. Management of the ICH guideline on clinical safety data management: data elements for transmission of individual case safety reports [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ich.org/pdfICH/e2bm.pdf [Accessed 2003 Sep 20]

  30. WHO drug dictionary 2nd quarter 2003. Uppsala: The Uppsala Monitoring Centre, 2003

  31. WHO Adverse Reaction Terminology Dec 2002. Uppsala: The Uppsala Monitoring Centre, 2002

  32. Brown EG, Wood L, Wood S. The medical dictionary for regulatory activities (MedDRA). Drug Saf 1999; 20(2): 109–17

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. WHO. International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems, 1989 revision. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1992

  34. van der Klauw MM, Stricker BH, Herings RM, et al. A population based case-cohort study of drug-induced anaphylaxis. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1993; 35(4): 400–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Rawlins MD. Pharmacovigilance: paradise lost, regained or postponed? The William Withering Lecture 1994. J R Coll Physicians Lond 1995; 29(1): 41–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Belton KJ. Attitude survey of adverse drug-reaction reporting by health care professionals across the European Union. The European Pharmacovigilance Research Group. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1997; 52(6): 423–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Begaud B, Martin K, Haramburu F, et al. Rates of spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions in France [letter]. JAMA 2002; 288(13): 1588

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Wack JP, Carnahan LJ. Keeping your site comfortably secure: an introduction to Internet firewalls. NIST Special Publication 800-10 [online]. Available from URL: http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-10/main.html [Accessed 2003 Sep 20]

  39. van Puijenbroek EP, Bate A, Leufkens HG, et al. A comparison of measures of disproportionality for signal detection in spontaneous reporting systems for adverse drug reactions. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2002; 11(1): 3–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Bate A, Lindquist M, Edwards IR, et al. A Bayesian neural network method for adverse drug reaction signal generation. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 54: 315–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. DuMouchel W. Bayesian data mining in large frequency tables, with an application to the FDA spontaneous reporting system. Am Stat 1999; 53(3): 177–90

    Google Scholar 

  42. Evans SJ, Waller PC, Davis S. Use of proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) for signal generation from spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2001; 10(6): 483–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. van Puijenbroek EP. Quantitative signal detection in pharmacovigilance [Doctorate]. Utrecht: Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  44. Lindquist M, Stahl M, Bate A, et al. A retrospective evaluation of a data mining approach to aid finding new adverse drug reaction signals in the WHO international database. Drug Saf 2000; 23(6): 533–42

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Orre R. On data mining and classification using a Bayesian Confidence Propagation Neural Network [Doctorate]. Stockholm: Royal Institute of Technology, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  46. Brown EG. Methods and pitfalls in searching drug safety databases utilising the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA). Drug Saf 2003; 26(3): 145–58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Coulter DM. The New Zealand intensive medicines monitoring programme. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1998; 7: 79–90

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Scott HD, Thatcher-Renshaw A, Rosenbaum SE, et al. Physician reporting of adverse drug reactions. Results of the Rhode Island adverse drug reaction project. JAMA 1990; 263(13): 1785–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Orsini MJ, Orsini PA, Thorn DB, et al. An ADR surveillance programme: increasing quality, number of incidence reports. Formulary 1995; 30(8): 454–61

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. McGettigan P, Golden J, Conroy RM, et al. Reporting of adverse drug reactions by hospital doctors and the response to intervention. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1997; 44(1): 98–100

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Concept paper. Risk assessment of observational data: good pharmacovigilance practices and pharmacoepidemiological assessment [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/cder/meeting/groupIIIfinal.pdf [Accessed 2003 Sep 20]

Download references

Acknowledgments

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this review. The author has no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Uppsala Monitoring Centre, WHO Collaborating Centre for International Drug Monitoring, Stora Torget 3, Uppsala, 752 37, Sweden

    Marie Lindquist

Authors
  1. Marie Lindquist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marie Lindquist.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lindquist, M. Data Quality Management in Pharmacovigilance. Drug-Safety 27, 857–870 (2004). https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200427120-00003

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200427120-00003

Keywords

Search

Navigation