Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22266893›Full record

ArticleEpidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)2012

Active safety monitoring of new medical products using electronic healthcare data: selecting alerting rules.

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

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Joshua J GagneDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02120, USA. jgagne1@partners.org
Jeremy A Rassen
Alexander M Walker
Robert J Glynn
Sebastian Schneeweiss
Harvard University · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · US

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
Comparative effectiveness methods for evaluation of in-hospital exposuresK01HS018088 · AHRQ · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI RASSEN, JEREMY A · 2009 to 2012
$537k
AHRQ HHS 1 K01 HS018088AHRQ HHS K01 HS018088CCR NIH HHS RC1-RR028231NCRR NIH HHS RC1 RR028231NHLBI NIH HHS RC4 HL106376NHLBI 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

backgroundActive medical-product-safety surveillance systems are being developed to monitor many products and outcomes simultaneously in routinely collected longitudinal electronic healthcare data. These systems will rely on algorithms to generate alerts about potential safety concerns.

methodsWe compared the performance of 5 classes of algorithms in simulated data using a sequential matched-cohort framework, and applied the results to 2 electronic healthcare databases to replicate monitoring of cerivastatin-induced rhabdomyolysis. We generated 600,000 simulated scenarios with varying expected event frequency in the unexposed, alerting threshold, and outcome risk in the exposed, and compared the alerting algorithms in each scenario type using an event-based performance metric.

resultsWe observed substantial variation in algorithm performance across the groups of scenarios. Relative performance varied by the event frequency and by user-defined preferences for sensitivity versus specificity. Type I error-based statistical testing procedures achieved higher event-based performance than other approaches in scenarios with few events, whereas statistical process control and disproportionality measures performed relatively better with frequent events. In the empirical data, we observed 6 cases of rhabdomyolysis among 4294 person-years of follow-up, with all events occurring among cerivastatin-treated patients. All selected algorithms generated alerts before the drug was withdrawn from the market.

conclusionsFor active medical-product-safety monitoring in a sequential matched cohort framework, no single algorithm performed best in all scenarios. Alerting algorithm selection should be tailored to particular features of a product-outcome pair, including the expected event frequencies and trade-offs between false-positive and false-negative alerting.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsElectronic Health RecordsProduct Surveillance, PostmarketingAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsAnticholesteremic AgentsHumansPyridinesRhabdomyolysisSensitivity and SpecificityAnticholesteremic AgentscerivastatinPyridines

Identifiers

PMID22266893
PMCPMC3285473
OpenAlexW2051012042

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.