Utility of social media and crowd-sourced data for pharmacovigilance: A scoping review protocol

BMJ Open

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Tricco, Andrea C ^a,b   Zarin, Wasifa ^a   Lillie, Erin ^a   Pham, Ba ^a   Straus, Sharon E ^a,c  

^a ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

adverse event; data analytics; scoping review; social media; surveillance

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUTHORITY; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); COCHRANE LIBRARY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); CROWDSOURCING; DRUG SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM; EMBASE; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MEDICAL DEVICE; MEDLINE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REGISTER; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOCIAL MEDIA; STUDY DESIGN; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION; MEDICAL ERROR; PREVENTION AND CONTROL; UTILIZATION;

CROWDSOURCING; HUMANS; MEDICAL ERRORS; PHARMACOVIGILANCE; SOCIAL MEDIA;

EID: 85009986011     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013474     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Smith K. Marketing: 96 amazing social media statistics and facts for 2016: Brandwatch Blog, 2016 [updated 7 Mar 2016]. https://www. brandwatch.com/2016/03/96-amazing-social-media-statistics-andfacts- for-2016/
2. Statistics Canada. Internet use by individuals, by selected characteristics 2010 [updated 10 May 2010]. http://www.statcan.gc. ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/comm35a-eng.htm
3. Statistics Canada. Internet use by individuals, by type of activity (Internet users at home) 2010 [updated 10 May 2010. http://www. statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/comm29a-eng.htm
4. Twitter catches the flu: detecting influenza epidemics using Twitter. Proceedings of the conference on empirical methods in natural language processing. Association for Computational Linguistics. 2011.
5. Broniatowski DA, Paul MJ, Dredze M. National and local influenza surveillance through Twitter: an analysis of the 2012-2013 influenza epidemic. PLoS ONE 2013;8:e83672.
6. Jashinsky J, Burton SH, Hanson CL, et al. Tracking suicide risk factors through Twitter in the US. Crisis 2014;35:51-9.
7. Scanfeld D, Scanfeld V, Larson EL. Dissemination of health information through social networks: Twitter and antibiotics. Am J Infect Control 2010;38:182-8.
8. Nakhasi A, Passarella R, Bell SG, Paul MJ, Dredze M, Pronovost P, editors. Malpractice and malcontent: Analyzing medical complaints in twitter. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence Fall Symposium Series; 2012.
9. Eysenbach G. Infodemiology and infoveillance: framework for an emerging set of public health informatics methods to analyze search, communication and publication behavior on the Internet. J Med Internet Res 2009;11:e11.
10. Paul MJ, Dredze M, Broniatowski D. Twitter improves influenza forecasting. PLoS Curr 2014;6. doi:10.1371/currents.outbreaks. 90b9ed0f59bae4ccaa683a39865d9117
11. Santillana M, Nguyen AT, Dredze M, et al. Combining search, social media, and traditional data sources to improve influenza surveillance. PLoS Comput Biol 2015;11:e1004513.
12. Sharpe JD, Hopkins RS, Cook RL, et al. Evaluating Google, Twitter, and Wikipedia as tools for influenza surveillance using Bayesian change point analysis: a comparative analysis. JMIR Public Health Surveill 2016;2:e161.
13. Chew C, Eysenbach G. Pandemics in the age of Twitter: content analysis of Tweets during the 2009 H1N1 outbreak. PLoS ONE 2010;5:e14118.
14. Fung IC, Hao Y, Cai J, et al. Chinese social media reaction to information about 42 notifiable infectious diseases. PLoS ONE 2015;10:e0126092.
15. Fung IC, Fu KW, Chan CH, et al. Social media's initial reaction to information and misinformation on Ebola, August 2014: facts and rumors. Public Health Rep 2016;131:461-73.
16. World Health Organization. Essential medicines and health products: pharmacovigilance. 2016. http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/ quality-safety/safety-efficacy/pharmvigi/en/
17. Wester K, Jönsson AK, Spigset O, et al. Incidence of fatal adverse drug reactions: a population based study. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2008;65:573-9.
18. van Der Hooft CS, Sturkenboom MC, van Grootheest K, et al. Adverse drug reaction-related hospitalisations: a nationwide study in The Netherlands. Drug Saf 2006;29:161-8.
19. Bates DW, Evans RS, Murff H, et al. Detecting adverse events using information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2003;10:115-28.
20. McClellan M. Drug safety reform at the FDA-pendulum swing or systematic improvement? N Engl J Med 2007;356:1700-2.
21. Mittmann N, Knowles SR, Gomez M, et al. Evaluation of the extent of under-reporting of serious adverse drug reactions: the case of toxic epidermal necrolysis. Drug Saf 2004;27:477-87.
22. Golder S, Norman G, Loke YK. Systematic review on the prevalence, frequency and comparative value of adverse events data in social media. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2015;80:878-88.
23. Lardon J, Abdellaoui R, Bellet F, et al. Adverse drug reaction identification and extraction in social media: a scoping review. J Med Internet Res 2015;17:e171.
24. Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005;8:19-32.
25. Knowledge Translation Program. Canada: Knowledge Translation Program; 2016. http://knowledgetranslation.net/
26. Peters M, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Soares C, Hanan K, Parker D. The Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual 2015: Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews. 2015. Available from: http://joannabriggs. org/assets/docs/sumari/Reviewers-Manual-Methodology-for-JBIScoping-Reviews-2015-v2.pdf.
27. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015;349:g7647.
28. Stone PW. Popping the (PICO) question in research and evidence-based practice. Appl Nurs Res 2002;15:197-8.
29. Health Canada. Drugs and Health Products. 2016 [updated 30 June 2016]. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/index-eng.php
30. Naik P, Umrath T, van Stekelenborg J, et al. Regulatory definitions and good pharmacovigilance practices in social media: challenges and recommendations. Ther Innov Regul Sci 2015;49:840-51.
31. Merriam-Webster. Crowdsourcing. http://www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/crowdsourcing
32. McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, et al. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;75:40-6.
33. CADTH. Grey matters: a practical tool for searching health-related grey literature: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). 2015. https://www.cadth.ca/resources/ finding-evidence/grey-matters
34. MedWatcher. MedWatcher for Enterprise 2016. https://medwatcher. org/about
35. WEB-RADR. WEB-RADR: Recognising Adverse Drug Reactions 2016. https://web-radr.eu/
36. Sinnenberg L, Buttenheim AM, Padrez K, et al. Twitter as a tool for health research: a systematic review. Am J Public Health 2017;107: e1-8.
37. Newton D. Synthesi.SR. Toronto, Canada: Knowledge Translation Program, St. Michael's Hospital, 2012.
38. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2016;16:15.
39. Tricco AC, Soobiah C, Berliner S, Ho J, Ng C, Ashoor HS, SE. Efficacy and Safety of Cognitive Enhancers for Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis; 2013. Available from: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/dsen-abstracten. Pdf