Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16779057›Full record

ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2005

Can current electronic systems meet drug safety and effectiveness requirements?

Anne Holbrook, Paul Grootendorst, Don Willison, Charles Goldsmith, Rolf Sebaldt, Karim Keshavjee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Anne HolbrookFaculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Toronto.
Paul Grootendorst
Don Willison
Charles Goldsmith
Rolf Sebaldt
Karim Keshavjee

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvery health policy jurisdiction is endeavoring to enhance its ability to evaluate drug effectiveness, safety and cost in the real world (pharmacosurveillance).

methodsA nominal group consensus conference of stakeholders finalized data items deemed necessary for pharmacosurveillance. Large administrative datasets (LADs), electronic health records (EHRs) and electronic patient registries (PRs), were investigated as sources of this information and for their vulnerability to methodologic bias. Health data privacy legislation and research guidelines were systematically reviewed for their constraint to linked data resource analyses.

resultsMore than 129 data items were strongly recommended for routine pharmacosurveillance. LADs had very complete information, but restricted to a small number of required data items. EHRs, especially with e-pharmacy links, offer by far the most complete set of health information domains but data entry completeness is highly variable. Adjustment methods for channeling bias are inadequate to mimic randomized trials. Anonymized, linked data held within a secure academic research environment, poses the least privacy concerns.

conclusionsNotwithstanding major technical, methodologic and privacy challenges, individual-level linkage of health data resources poses the best option for pharmacosurveillance today. In future, drug regulators and reimbursement agencies should consider mandatory post-marketing randomized trials.

Indexed as

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsDatabases, FactualMedical Records Systems, ComputerizedPharmaceutical PreparationsConfidentialityCost-Benefit AnalysisDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHumansMedical Record LinkageRegistriesPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

PMID16779057
PMCPMC1560699

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.