Data mining in pharmacovigilance: lessons from phantom ships.

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.

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.

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Charting and Sidestepping the Pitfalls of Disproportionality Analysis.Drug safety · 2026
   Review
2. Interplay of Spontaneous Reporting and Longitudinal Healthcare Databases for Signal Management: Position Statement from the Real-World Evidence and Big Data Special Interest Group of the International Society of Pharmacovigilance.Drug safety · 2025
   Article
3. The use of older studies in meta-analyses of medical interventions: a survey.Open medicine : a peer-reviewed, independent, open-access journal · 2009
   Article
4. Illusions of objectivity and a recommendation for reporting data mining results.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2007
   Article
5. Impact of safety alerts on measures of disproportionality in spontaneous reporting databases: the notoriety bias.Drug safety · 2007
   Article
6. Potential use of data-mining algorithms for the detection of 'surprise' adverse drug reactions.Drug safety · 2007
   Article
7. Gold standards in pharmacovigilance: the use of definitive anecdotal reports of adverse drug reactions as pure gold and high-grade ore.Drug safety · 2007
   Article
8. Evolution and translation of research findings: from bench to where?PLoS clinical trials · 2006
   Article

Corrections and comments

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

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as