评估ASCO决策辅助对提高严重不良事件报告准确性和归因的影响。

Q1 Nursing
K. Mileham, Caroline Schenkel, M. Chuk, A. Buchmeier, R. P. Perez, P. Hurley, Laura A. Levit, E. Garrett-Mayer, C. Davis, S. Bruinooge, J. Vose
{"title":"评估ASCO决策辅助对提高严重不良事件报告准确性和归因的影响。","authors":"K. Mileham, Caroline Schenkel, M. Chuk, A. Buchmeier, R. P. Perez, P. Hurley, Laura A. Levit, E. Garrett-Mayer, C. Davis, S. Bruinooge, J. Vose","doi":"10.1200/JOP.19.00366","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PURPOSE\nInvestigators often send reports to sponsors that incorrectly categorize adverse event (AE)s as serious or attribute AEs to investigational drugs. Such errors can contribute to high volumes of uninformative investigational new drug safety reports that sponsors submit to the US Food and Drug Administration and participating investigators, which strain resources and impede the detection of valid safety signals. To improve the quality of serious AE (SAE) reporting by physician-investigators and research staff, ASCO developed and tested a Decision Aid.\n\n\nMETHODS\nA preliminary study with crossover design was conducted in a convenience sample. Physician-investigators and research staff were randomly assigned to receive case studies. Case studies were assessed for seriousness and attribution, first unassisted and then with the Decision Aid. Participants completed a feedback survey about the Decision Aid. Effectiveness of reporting and attribution are reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CI. Power to detect associations was limited because of a small sample size.\n\n\nRESULTS\nThe Decision Aid did not significantly affect accuracy of determining seriousness (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.31 to 2.46), but it did significantly increase accuracy of attributing an SAE to a drug (OR, 3.60; 95% CI, 1.15 to 11.4). Most of the 29 participants reported that the Decision Aid was helpful (93%) and improved decision-making time (69%) and confidence in reporting (83%), and that they would use the Decision Aid in practice (83%).\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nThe Decision Aid shows promise as a method to improve the quality of SAE attribution, which may improve the detection of valid safety signals and reduce the administrative burden of uninformative investigational new drug safety reports. Study of the Decision Aid in a larger sample with analysis stratified by participant role and SAE reporting experience would further assess the tool's impact.","PeriodicalId":54273,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Oncology Practice","volume":"1 1","pages":"JOP1900366"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1200/JOP.19.00366","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing an ASCO Decision Aid for Improving the Accuracy and Attribution of Serious Adverse Event Reporting From Investigators to Sponsors.\",\"authors\":\"K. Mileham, Caroline Schenkel, M. Chuk, A. Buchmeier, R. P. Perez, P. Hurley, Laura A. Levit, E. Garrett-Mayer, C. Davis, S. Bruinooge, J. Vose\",\"doi\":\"10.1200/JOP.19.00366\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PURPOSE\\nInvestigators often send reports to sponsors that incorrectly categorize adverse event (AE)s as serious or attribute AEs to investigational drugs. Such errors can contribute to high volumes of uninformative investigational new drug safety reports that sponsors submit to the US Food and Drug Administration and participating investigators, which strain resources and impede the detection of valid safety signals. To improve the quality of serious AE (SAE) reporting by physician-investigators and research staff, ASCO developed and tested a Decision Aid.\\n\\n\\nMETHODS\\nA preliminary study with crossover design was conducted in a convenience sample. Physician-investigators and research staff were randomly assigned to receive case studies. Case studies were assessed for seriousness and attribution, first unassisted and then with the Decision Aid. Participants completed a feedback survey about the Decision Aid. Effectiveness of reporting and attribution are reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CI. Power to detect associations was limited because of a small sample size.\\n\\n\\nRESULTS\\nThe Decision Aid did not significantly affect accuracy of determining seriousness (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.31 to 2.46), but it did significantly increase accuracy of attributing an SAE to a drug (OR, 3.60; 95% CI, 1.15 to 11.4). Most of the 29 participants reported that the Decision Aid was helpful (93%) and improved decision-making time (69%) and confidence in reporting (83%), and that they would use the Decision Aid in practice (83%).\\n\\n\\nCONCLUSION\\nThe Decision Aid shows promise as a method to improve the quality of SAE attribution, which may improve the detection of valid safety signals and reduce the administrative burden of uninformative investigational new drug safety reports. Study of the Decision Aid in a larger sample with analysis stratified by participant role and SAE reporting experience would further assess the tool's impact.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54273,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Oncology Practice\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"JOP1900366\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1200/JOP.19.00366\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Oncology Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.19.00366\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Nursing\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Oncology Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.19.00366","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

研究人员经常向赞助商发送报告,错误地将不良事件(AE)归类为严重事件或将AE归因于研究药物。此类错误可能导致申办者向美国食品和药物管理局(fda)和参与的研究人员提交大量缺乏信息的研究性新药安全报告,从而使资源紧张,阻碍了有效安全信号的检测。为了提高医师调查员和研究人员报告严重AE (SAE)的质量,ASCO开发并测试了一种Decision Aid。方法采用交叉设计,在方便样本中进行初步研究。医师调查员和研究人员被随机分配接受病例研究。对案例研究的严重性和归因进行评估,首先是在没有帮助的情况下,然后是在决策援助的帮助下。参与者完成了一份关于决策辅助的反馈调查。报告和归因的有效性以95% CI的比值比(or)报告。由于样本量小,检测关联的能力有限。结果决策辅助对判定严重程度的准确性无显著影响(OR, 0.87;95% CI, 0.31至2.46),但它确实显著提高了将SAE归因于药物的准确性(OR, 3.60;95% CI, 1.15 - 11.4)。29名参与者中的大多数报告说决策援助是有帮助的(93%),提高了决策时间(69%)和报告的信心(83%),他们将在实践中使用决策援助(83%)。结论决策辅助是一种提高SAE归因质量的方法,可以提高有效安全信号的检测,减轻缺乏信息的新药临床试验安全报告的管理负担。在更大的样本中对决策辅助进行研究,并根据参与者角色和SAE报告经验进行分层分析,将进一步评估该工具的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing an ASCO Decision Aid for Improving the Accuracy and Attribution of Serious Adverse Event Reporting From Investigators to Sponsors.
PURPOSE Investigators often send reports to sponsors that incorrectly categorize adverse event (AE)s as serious or attribute AEs to investigational drugs. Such errors can contribute to high volumes of uninformative investigational new drug safety reports that sponsors submit to the US Food and Drug Administration and participating investigators, which strain resources and impede the detection of valid safety signals. To improve the quality of serious AE (SAE) reporting by physician-investigators and research staff, ASCO developed and tested a Decision Aid. METHODS A preliminary study with crossover design was conducted in a convenience sample. Physician-investigators and research staff were randomly assigned to receive case studies. Case studies were assessed for seriousness and attribution, first unassisted and then with the Decision Aid. Participants completed a feedback survey about the Decision Aid. Effectiveness of reporting and attribution are reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CI. Power to detect associations was limited because of a small sample size. RESULTS The Decision Aid did not significantly affect accuracy of determining seriousness (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.31 to 2.46), but it did significantly increase accuracy of attributing an SAE to a drug (OR, 3.60; 95% CI, 1.15 to 11.4). Most of the 29 participants reported that the Decision Aid was helpful (93%) and improved decision-making time (69%) and confidence in reporting (83%), and that they would use the Decision Aid in practice (83%). CONCLUSION The Decision Aid shows promise as a method to improve the quality of SAE attribution, which may improve the detection of valid safety signals and reduce the administrative burden of uninformative investigational new drug safety reports. Study of the Decision Aid in a larger sample with analysis stratified by participant role and SAE reporting experience would further assess the tool's impact.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Oncology Practice
Journal of Oncology Practice Nursing-Oncology (nursing)
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Journal of Oncology Practice (JOP) provides necessary information and insights to keep oncology practice current on changes and challenges inherent in delivering quality oncology care. All content dealing with understanding the provision of care—the mechanics of practice—is the purview of JOP. JOP also addresses an expressed need of practicing physicians to have compressed, expert opinion addressing common clinical problems.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信