Standardized classification unsuitable for spontaneous reporting: the example of XXXX .

@entity5520 @entity89 @entity171
OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the impact of using a standardized definition of @entity5520 -related @entity89 (BRONJ) in the analysis of a spontaneous reporting database. METHODS: All notifications of @entity89 (ONJ) in the French National Pharmacovigilance Database as of 31 December 2013 were analyzed. First, we considered all reports of ONJ with @entity171 as BRONJ. Second, we applied the 2014 definition of BRONJ from the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (AAOMS), retaining only @entity171 as antiresorptive medication. In the absence of any one of these criteria, or missing data, cases were not considered as BRONJ. RESULTS: The first analysis found 158 cases of ONJ, among which 153 were associated with @entity5520 use. The second analysis identified only 43 cases of BRONJ (28.1%). CONCLUSION: The definition of BRONJ as laid down by the AAOMS is not suitable for use in spontaneous reporting database. The use of the AAOMS definition alone should be avoided, as it leads to the exclusion of over 70% of cases. When cases of ONJ are identified, all results should be presented including confirmed and excluded cases.
