ArticleDrug safety2009
An evaluation of three signal-detection algorithms using a highly inclusive reference event database.
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 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Multivariate generalized mixed-effects models for screening multiple adverse drug reactions in spontaneous reporting systems.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Exploring the impact of design criteria for reference sets on performance evaluation of signal detection algorithms: The case of drug-drug interactions.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2023Article
- A Data-Driven Reference Standard for Adverse Drug Reaction (RS-ADR) Signal Assessment: Development and Validation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Artificial Intelligence Based on Machine Learning in Pharmacovigilance: A Scoping Review.Drug safety · 2022Article
- Borrowing external information to improve Bayesian confidence propagation neural network.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2020Article
- Evaluation of quantitative signal detection in EudraVigilance for orphan drugs: possible risk of false negatives.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2019Review
- Early signal detection of adverse events following influenza vaccination using proportional reporting ratio, Victoria, Australia.PloS one · 2019Article
- Article
- A Pharmacovigilance Signaling System Based on FDA Regulatory Action and Post-Marketing Adverse Event Reports.Drug safety · 2016Article
- Statistical Signal Detection as a Routine Pharmacovigilance Practice: Effects of Periodicity and Resignalling Criteria on Quality and Workload.Drug safety · 2015Article
- Arrhythmia associated with buprenorphine and methadone reported to the Food and Drug Administration.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2015Article
- Comparison of statistical signal detection methods within and across spontaneous reporting databases.Drug safety · 2015Article
- Pediatric drug safety signal detection: a new drug-event reference set for performance testing of data-mining methods and systems.Drug safety · 2015Article
- Bridging islands of information to establish an integrated knowledge base of drugs and health outcomes of interest.Drug safety · 2014Article
- Automatically Recognizing Medication and Adverse Event Information From Food and Drug Administration's Adverse Event Reporting System Narratives.JMIR medical informatics · 2014Article
- Reducing the noise in signal detection of adverse drug reactions by standardizing the background: a pilot study on analyses of proportional reporting ratios-by-therapeutic area.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2014Article
- Commonality of drug-associated adverse events detected by 4 commonly used data mining algorithms.International journal of medical sciences · 2014Article
- Performance of pharmacovigilance signal-detection algorithms for the FDA adverse event reporting system.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2013Article
- Data mining of the public version of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System.International journal of medical sciences · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPharmacovigilance data-mining algorithms (DMAs) are known to generate significant numbers of false-positive signals of disproportionate reporting (SDRs), using various standards to define the terms 'true positive' and 'false positive'.
objectiveTo construct a highly inclusive reference event database of reported adverse events for a limited set of drugs, and to utilize that database to evaluate three DMAs for their overall yield of scientifically supported adverse drug effects, with an emphasis on ascertaining false-positive rates as defined by matching to the database, and to assess the overlap among SDRs detected by various DMAs.
methodsA sample of 35 drugs approved by the US FDA between 2000 and 2004 was selected, including three drugs added to cover therapeutic categories not included in the original sample. We compiled a reference event database of adverse event information for these drugs from historical and current US prescribing information, from peer-reviewed literature covering 1999 through March 2006, from regulatory actions announced by the FDA and from adverse event listings in the British National Formulary. Every adverse event mentioned in these sources was entered into the database, even those with minimal evidence for causality. To provide some selectivity regarding causality, each entry was assigned a level of evidence based on the source of the information, using rules developed by the authors. Using the FDA adverse event reporting system data for 2002 through 2005, SDRs were identified for each drug using three DMAs: an urn-model based algorithm, the Gamma Poisson Shrinker (GPS) and proportional reporting ratio (PRR), using previously published signalling thresholds. The absolute number and fraction of SDRs matching the reference event database at each level of evidence was determined for each report source and the data-mining method. Overlap of the SDR lists among the various methods and report sources was tabulated as well.
resultsThe GPS algorithm had the lowest overall yield of SDRs (763), with the highest fraction of events matching the reference event database (89 SDRs, 11.7%), excluding events described in the prescribing information at the time of drug approval. The urn model yielded more SDRs (1562), with a non-significantly lower fraction matching (175 SDRs, 11.2%). PRR detected still more SDRs (3616), but with a lower fraction matching (296 SDRs, 8.2%). In terms of overlap of SDRs among algorithms, PRR uniquely detected the highest number of SDRs (2231, with 144, or 6.5%, matching), followed by the urn model (212, with 26, or 12.3%, matching) and then GPS (0 SDRs uniquely detected).
conclusionsThe three DMAs studied offer significantly different tradeoffs between the number of SDRs detected and the degree to which those SDRs are supported by external evidence. Those differences may reflect choices of detection thresholds as well as features of the algorithms themselves. For all three algorithms, there is a substantial fraction of SDRs for which no external supporting evidence can be found, even when a highly inclusive search for such evidence is conducted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19459718What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.