Adverse-event rates: journals versus databases

Lancet

Volumn 369, Issue 9557, 2007, Pages 171-172

  Mahoney, Michelle R ^a   Sargent, Daniel J ^a  

^a MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADVERSE DRUG REACTION; ARTICLE; CANCER RESEARCH; DATA BASE; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PHYSICIAN; POSTMARKETING SURVEILLANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 33846190121     PISSN: 01406736     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60086-5     Document Type: Note

References (20)

1. National Cancer Institute: CTEP/NCI guidelines: adverse event reporting guidelines. Jan 1, 2005. http://ctep.cancer.gov/reporting/newadverse_2006.pdf (accessed Nov 28, 2006).
2. Goldberg R., Sargent D., Morton R., Mahoney M., Krook J., and O'Connell M. Early detection of toxicity and adjustment of ongoing clinical trials: the history and performance of the North Central Cancer Treatment Group's real-time toxicity monitoring program. J Clin Oncol 20 (2002) 4591-4596
3. National Cancer Institute. Monitoring of clinical trials. http://ctep.cancer.gov/monitoring/index.html (accessed Nov 28, 2006).
4. Morse M., Califf R., and Sugarman J. Monitoring and ensuring safety during clinical research. JAMA 285 (2001) 1201-1205
5. National Cancer Institute. Clinical data update system (CDUS) (2003). http://ctep.cancer.gov/reporting/cdus.html (accessed Nov 28, 2006).
6. Calfee J. The roles of the FDA and pharmaceutical companies in ensuring the safety of approved drugs, like Vioxx. Testimony, House Committee on Government Reform, (Washington, DC, USA) (May 5, 2005). http://www.aei.org/publication22465 (accessed Nov 28, 2006).
7. Scharf O., and Colevas D. Adverse event reporting in publications compared with sponsor database for cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 24 (2006) 3933-3938
8. Hillman S., Mandrekar S., Bot B., et al. Should attribution be considered when interpreting adverse event data: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) evaluation of a phase III placebo controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 18S suppl (2006) 6006 (abstr).
9. Ioannidis J., Mulrow C., and Goodman S. Adverse events: the more you search, the more you find. Ann Intern Med 144 (2006) 298-300
10. Raisch D., Troutman W., Sather M., and Fudala P. Variability in the assessment of adverse events in a multicenter clinical trial. Clin Ther 23 (2001) 2011-2020
11. Ioanndis J., Evans S., Gotzsche P., and for the CONSORT Group. Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med 141 (2004) 781-788
12. Foote M., and Noguchi P. Posting of clinical trials and clinical trial results: information for medical writers. Am Med Writers Assoc J 20 (2005) 47-49
13. Plint A., Moher D., Morrison A., et al. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust 185 (2006) 263-267
14. Mann H. Research ethics committees and public dissemination of clinical trial results. Lancet 360 (2002) 406-408
15. Anderson S. Some thoughts on reporting of adverse events in phase II cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 24 (2006) 3821-3822
16. National Cancer Institute. CTEP forms, templates, and documents: CTCAE v3.0 and lay term mapping document. http://ctep.cancer.gov/forms (accessed Nov 28, 2006).
17. National Cancer Institute. List of codes and values: CTCAE/CTC codes (May 10, 2006). http://ctep.cancer.gov/guidelines/codes.html#ctc (accessed Nov 28, 2006).
18. Mahoney M., Sargent D., O'Connel M., Goldberg R., Schaefer P., and Buckner J. Dealing with a deluge of data: an assessment of adverse event data on North Central Cancer Treatment Group trials. J Clin Oncol 23 (2005) 9275-9281
19. Korn D., and Ehringhaus S. Principles for strengthening the integrity of clinical research. PLoS Clin Trials 1 (2006) e1
20. Keech A., Wonders S., Cook D., and Gebski V. Balancing the outcomes: reporting adverse events. Med J Aust 181 (2004) 215-218