Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22223544›Full record

ArticlePharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2012

An event-based approach for comparing the performance of methods for prospective medical product monitoring.

Joshua J Gagne, Alexander M Walker, Robert J Glynn, Jeremy A Rassen, Sebastian Schneeweiss

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Joshua J GagneDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. jgagne1@partners.org
Alexander M Walker
Robert J Glynn
Jeremy A Rassen
Sebastian Schneeweiss

Funding

Analyzing Complex Healthcare Data to Determine Causality of Observed Drug EffectsR01LM010213 · NLM · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI SCHNEEWEISS, SEBASTIAN G. · 2009 to 2012
$1.6M
Assessment of Treatment Effects in High-Dimensional, Routine Care Claims DataRC4HL106376 · NHLBI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI SCHNEEWEISS, SEBASTIAN G. · 2010 to 2010
$1.3M
"Stopping Rules" for Drug Safety Monitoring Using Healthcare DatabasesRC1LM010351 · NLM · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI SCHNEEWEISS, SEBASTIAN G. · 2009 to 2010
$975k
Effectiveness studies with securely pooled healthcare data and adjusted analysesRC1RR028231 · NCRR · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI SCHNEEWEISS, SEBASTIAN G. · 2009 to 2010
$931k
AHRQ HHS 1K01 HS018088AHRQ HHS K01 HS018088CCR NIH HHS RC1-RR028231NCRR NIH HHS RC1 RR028231NHLBI NIH HHS RC4-HL102023NHLBI NIH HHS RC4 HL106376NLM NIH HHS R01 LM010213NLM NIH HHS R01-LM010213NLM NIH HHS RC1 LM010351NLM NIH HHS RC1-LM010351
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProspective medical product monitoring is intended to alert stakeholders about whether and when safety problems are identifiable in longitudinal electronic healthcare data. Little attention has been given to how to compare methods in this setting. PURPOSE: To explore aspects of prospective monitoring that should be considered when comparing method performance and to develop a metric that explicitly accounts for these considerations.

methodsWe reviewed existing metrics and propose an event-based approach that classifies exposed outcomes according to whether a prior alert was generated.

resultsIn comparing performance of methods for prospective monitoring, three factors must be considered: (1) accuracy in alerting; (2) timeliness of alerting; and (3) the trade-offs between the costs of false negative and false positive alerting. Traditional scenario-based measures of accuracy, such as sensitivity and specificity, which classify only at the end of monitoring, fail to appreciate timeliness of alerting and impose fixed tradeoffs between false positive versus false negative consequences. We provide an expression that summarizes event-based sensitivity (the proportion of exposed events that occur after alerting among all exposed events in scenarios with true safety issues) and event-based specificity (the proportion of exposed events that occur in the absence of alerting among all exposed events in scenarios with no true safety issues) by taking an average weighted by relative costs of false positive and false negative alerting.

conclusionsThe proposed approach explicitly accounts for accuracy in alerting, timeliness in alerting, and the trade-offs between the costs of false negative and false positive alerting.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsModels, StatisticalAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsData MiningFalse Negative ReactionsFalse Positive ReactionsPharmacovigilancePredictive Value of TestsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID22223544
PMCPMC3371151

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.