Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11136-014-0715-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
To assess the validity of a patient-reported adverse drug events (ADEs) questionnaire with a 3-month or 4-week recall period.
Patients receiving at least one oral glucose-lowering drug were asked to report potential ADEs they experienced related to any drug in a daily diary for a 3-month period. Thereafter, they completed the ADE questionnaire with either a 3-month or 4-week recall period. The validity was assessed by comparing ADEs reported in each version with those reported in the diary at class level and at specific ADE level. At class level, a comparison was made using (1) primary system organ classes (SOCs) of the medical dictionary for regulatory activities and (2) other related SOCs. Sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated.
Each version of the questionnaire was completed by 39 patients. In the 3-month group, 21 patients reported 70 ADEs in the diary. In the 4-week group, six patients reported seven ADEs in the last 4 weeks of the diary. Sensitivity to assess ADEs at primary SOC was low for both recall groups (33 %). PPV was 51 and 10 % for, respectively, the 3-month and 4-week group. Taking other related SOCs into account slightly increased the sensitivity for the 3-month group (38%). Sensitivity of reporting the same ADE was 41 and 43 % for, respectively, the 3-month and 4-week group.
Regardless of the recall period and level of comparison, the validity for assessing ADEs was low with the patient-reported ADE questionnaire. Further refinement is needed to improve the validity.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 13 kb)11136_2014_715_MOESM1_ESM.pdf
Shiffman, S. (2004). Electronic diaries: Impact on drug development. http://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fda.gov%2Fohrms%2Fdockets%2Fac%2F04%2Fslides%2F2004-4078OPH1_01_Shiffman.ppt&ei=doRfUqz2CsbZswam54HoDg&usg=AFQjCNG2FAPyq7Q1qPEzbt-4gyBCsO2CEA. Accessed March 28, 2014.
Gendreau, M., Hufford, M. R., & Stone, A. A. (2003). Measuring clinical pain in chronic widespread pain: Selected methodological issues. Best Practice & Research. Clinical Rheumatology, 17(4), 575–592. CrossRef
Monk, T. H., Buysse, D. J., Kennedy, K. S., Pods, J. M., DeGrazia, J. M., & Miewald, J. M. (2003). Measuring sleep habits without using a diary: The sleep timing questionnaire. Sleep, 26(2), 208–212. PubMed
DeWalt, D. A., Rothrock, N., Yount, S., Stone, A. A., & PROMIS Cooperative Group. (2002). Evaluation of item candidates: The PROMIS qualitative item review. Medical Care, 45(5 Suppl 1), S12–S21.
Hufford, M. R., & Shiffman, S. (2002). Methodological issues affecting the value of patient-reported outcomes data. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 2(2), 119–128. CrossRef
Bohner, G., & Wänke, M. (2002). Attitudes and attitudes change. East Sussex: Psychology Press Ltd.
Litwin, M. S., & McGuigan, K. A. (1999). Accuracy of recall in health-related quality-of-life assessment among men treated for prostate cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 17(9), 2882–2888. PubMed
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, FDA, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Guidance for industry patient-reported outcome measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf. Accessed March 28, 2014.
Heyer, G.L., Perkins, S.Q., Rose, S.C., Aylward, S.C., & Lee, J.M. (2013). Comparing patient and parent recall of 90-day and 30-day migraine disability using elements of the PedMIDAS and an Internet headache diary. Cephalalgia, Nov 8.
de Vries, S.T., Mol, P.G., de Zeeuw, D., Haaijer-Ruskamp, F.M., & Denig, P. (2013). Development and initial validation of a patient-reported adverse drug event questionnaire. Drug Safety, 36(9), 765–777.
World Health Organization Drug and therapeutics committee. Session 4. Assessing and managing medicine safety [online]. http://www.who.int/medicines/technical_briefing/tbs/04-Drug-Safety_final-08.ppt. Accessed March 28, 2014.
European commission. Enterprise and industry directorate-general. A guideline on summary of product characteristics (SmPC) September 2009. http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/eudralex/vol-2/c/smpc_guideline_rev2_en.pdf. Accessed February 3, 2014.
Randomizer recall. Randomly assignment of subjects to groups were performed using the Web site: GraphPad, QuickCalcs, Random number calculators. http://www.graphpad.com/quickcalcs/. Accessed March 28, 2014.
De Vet, H., Terwee, C., Mokkink, L., & Knol, D. (2011). Measurement in medicine: A practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
- The validity of a patient-reported adverse drug event questionnaire using different recall periods
Sieta T. de Vries
Flora M. Haaijer-Ruskamp
Dick de Zeeuw
- Springer International Publishing