Background: To make a proper causality assessment of an adverse drug reaction (ADR) report, a certain level of clinical information is necessary. A tool was developed to measure the level of clinical information present in ADR reports. The aim of this study was to test the validity and reliability of the clinical documentation tool (ClinDoc) in an international setting.
Methods: The tool was developed by a panel of pharmacovigilance experts. It includes four domains: ADR, chronology of the ADR, suspected drug and patient characteristics. The final score categorizes reports into: excellent, well, moderately or poorly documented. In two rounds, eight pharmacovigilance assessors of different countries made a total of 224 assessments using the tool, with the expert panels judgement as a standard. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated.
Results: The tool with four outcome-categories demonstrated low sensitivity. A lack of distinctiveness was demonstrated between the categories moderate and well. Results for the second round were re-analysed using three categories. This demonstrated a better validity.
Conclusion: This is the first tool to give insight in the level of relevant clinical information present in ADR reports. It can be used internationally to compare reports coming from different reporting methods and different types of reporters in pharmacovigilance.
Keywords: ADR; Pharmacovigilance; adverse drug reaction; clinical information; completeness; report.