EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

Methods to Compare Adverse Events in Twitter to FAERS, Drug Information Databases, and Systematic Reviews: Proof of Concept with Adalimumab

Karen Smith, Su Golder, Abeed Sarker, Yoon Loke, Karen O’Connor and Graciela Gonzalez-Hernandez ()
Additional contact information
Karen Smith: Regis University
Su Golder: University of York
Abeed Sarker: University of Pennsylvania
Yoon Loke: University of East Anglia
Karen O’Connor: University of Pennsylvania
Graciela Gonzalez-Hernandez: University of Pennsylvania

Drug Safety, 2018, vol. 41, issue 12, 1397-1410

Abstract: Abstract Introduction Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are associated with significant health-related and financial burden, and multiple sources are currently utilized to actively discover them. Social media has been proposed as a potential resource for monitoring ADRs, but drug-specific analytical studies comparing social media with other sources are scarce. Objectives Our objective was to develop methods to compare ADRs mentioned in social media with those in traditional sources: the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), drug information databases (DIDs), and systematic reviews. Methods A total of 10,188 tweets mentioning adalimumab collected between June 2014 and August 2016 were included. ADRs in the corpus were extracted semi-automatically and manually mapped to standardized concepts in the Unified Medical Language System. ADRs were grouped into 16 biologic categories for comparisons. Frequencies, relative frequencies, disproportionality analyses, and rank ordering were used as metrics. Results There was moderate agreement between ADRs in social media and traditional sources. “Local and injection site reactions” was the top ADR in Twitter, DIDs, and systematic reviews by frequency, ranked frequency, and index ranking. The next highest ADR in Twitter—fatigue—ranked fifth and seventh in FAERS and DIDs. Conclusion Social media posts often express mild and symptomatic ADRs, but rates are measured differently in scientific sources. ADRs in FAERS are reported as absolute numbers, in DIDs as percentages, and in systematic reviews as percentages, risk ratios, or other metrics, which makes comparisons challenging; however, overlap is substantial. Social media analysis facilitates open-ended investigation of patient perspectives and may reveal concepts (e.g. anxiety) not available in traditional sources.

Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: Track citations by RSS feed

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40264-018-0707-6 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:41:y:2018:i:12:d:10.1007_s40264-018-0707-6

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/adis/journal/40264

Access Statistics for this article

Drug Safety is currently edited by Nitin Joshi

More articles in Drug Safety from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla ().

 
Page updated 2019-11-06
Handle: RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:41:y:2018:i:12:d:10.1007_s40264-018-0707-6