ArticlePharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2012
An event-based approach for comparing the performance of methods for prospective medical product monitoring.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A modular, prospective, semi-automated drug safety monitoring system for use in a distributed data environment.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2014Article
- Near-real-time monitoring of new drugs: an application comparing prasugrel versus clopidogrel.Drug safety · 2014Article
- Active safety monitoring of newly marketed medications in a distributed data network: application of a semi-automated monitoring system.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2012Article
- Active safety monitoring of new medical products using electronic healthcare data: selecting alerting rules.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2012Article
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
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
Identifiers
What 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.