Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19419236›Full record

ArticleDrug safety2009

Data mining in pharmacovigilance--detecting the unexpected: the role of index of suspicion of the reporter.

Anders Sundström, Pär Hallberg

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Drug safety, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anders SundströmDepartment of Drug Safety, Medical Products Agency, Uppsala, Sweden. anders.sundstrom@ki.se
Pär Hallberg
Medical Products Agency · SEUppsala University Hospital · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOne of the most important aims of pharmacovigilance is to detect signals of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) as early as possible. However, some ADRs are difficult to detect, one example being so called 'type C' reactions. These are effects that present as seemingly 'spontaneous' diseases occurring during treatment with a drug, such as the occurrence of a cardiovascular event while the patient is taking rofecoxib. As this type of ADR is often mistaken for a spontaneous disease, the causative agent may appear as an innocent bystander.

objectiveThe primary aim of this study was to investigate the possibility of using data mining approaches to detect signals of 'type C' reactions. We hypothesized that by including concomitant, and not only suspected medications in the calculations of disproportionality analyses, we would be able to identify such reactions. STUDY

designWe used data from the Swedish Drug Information System, SWEDIS, which contains spontaneous reports submitted by Swedish physicians to the Swedish Medical Products Agency, and applied Bayesian confidence propagation neural network (BCPNN) methodology to calculate the information component (IC) value for drug-event combinations for drugs belonging to the Anatomic Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classes cardiovascular system, musculoskeletal system and nervous system (number of reports = 51 270) where only the suspected drug was considered, and also where both concomitant and suspected drugs were considered. We then classified drug-event combinations that were signalled by a statistically significantly raised IC value as labelled or unlabelled based on the approved summary of product characteristics (SPC) in Sweden as of November 2007, and further classified them as 'type C' reactions or not 'type C'.

main outcome measureThe proportion of 'type C' reactions signalled when considering both concomitant and suspected drugs compared with suspected drugs only.

resultsThe proportion of labelled drug-event combinations when considering suspected drugs was 78.6%. Drug-event combinations classified as 'type C' reactions were more likely to be found when considering both concomitant and suspected drugs compared with suspected drugs only; 18/449 versus 0/248 when considering drug-event combinations that were signalled exclusively by one of the approaches. Such drug-event combinations included, for example, sudden death and celecoxib, myocardial infarction and diclofenac, suicide-related events and several antidepressants.

conclusionIncluding both concomitant and suspected drugs in data mining practices may be a way of detecting 'type C' reactions earlier. This could constitute an advance in data mining for pharmacovigilance practices.

Indexed as

Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsAlgorithmsBayes TheoremDatabases, FactualData Interpretation, StatisticalDrug MonitoringHumansModels, StatisticalNeural Networks, ComputerSweden

Identifiers

PMID19419236
OpenAlexW2056926513

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.