Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23571771›Full record

ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2013

Performance of pharmacovigilance signal-detection algorithms for the FDA adverse event reporting system.

R Harpaz, W DuMouchel, P LePendu, A Bauer-Mehren, P Ryan, N H Shah

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 185 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
185citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

185 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

125 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

R HarpazStanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA. rharpaz@stanford.edu
W DuMouchel
P LePendu
A Bauer-Mehren
P Ryan
N H Shah

Funding

STANFORD COMPOSITE(RMI)U54HG004028 · NHGRI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI MUSEN, MARK A · 2005 to 2014
$36.2M
NHGRI NIH HHS U54 HG004028NHGRI NIH HHS U54-HG004028
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Signal-detection algorithms (SDAs) are recognized as vital tools in pharmacovigilance. However, their performance characteristics are generally unknown. By leveraging a unique gold standard recently made public by the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) and by conducting a unique systematic evaluation, we provide new insights into the diagnostic potential and characteristics of SDAs that are routinely applied to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS). We find that SDAs can attain reasonable predictive accuracy in signaling adverse events. Two performance classes emerge, indicating that the class of approaches that address confounding and masking effects benefits safety surveillance. Our study shows that not all events are equally detectable, suggesting that specific events might be monitored more effectively using other data sources. We provide performance guidelines for several operating scenarios to inform the trade-off between sensitivity and specificity for specific use cases. We also propose an approach and demonstrate its application in identifying optimal signaling thresholds, given specific misclassification tolerances.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsPharmacovigilanceUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsHumansModels, StatisticalUnited States

Identifiers

PMID23571771
PMCPMC3857139

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.