Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24166233›Full record

ArticleDrug safety2013

Evaluating performance of risk identification methods through a large-scale simulation of observational data.

Patrick B Ryan, Martijn J Schuemie

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Drug safety, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Semaglutide and diabetic retinopathy: an OHDSI network study.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2025 · on this map
    Observational
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Replicability, Reproducibility, and Agent-based Simulation of Interventions.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2017
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Similarity-based modeling applied to signal detection in pharmacovigilance.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2014
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

2 authors.

Patrick B RyanJanssen Research and Development LLC, 1125 Trenton-Harbourton Road, Room K30205, PO Box 200, Titusville, NJ, 08560, USA, ryan@omop.org.
Martijn J Schuemie

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere has been only limited evaluation of statistical methods for identifying safety risks of drug exposure in observational healthcare data. Simulations can support empirical evaluation, but have not been shown to adequately model the real-world phenomena that challenge observational analyses.

objectivesTo design and evaluate a probabilistic framework (OSIM2) for generating simulated observational healthcare data, and to use this data for evaluating the performance of methods in identifying associations between drug exposure and health outcomes of interest. RESEARCH

designSeven observational designs, including case-control, cohort, self-controlled case series, and self-controlled cohort design were applied to 399 drug-outcome scenarios in 6 simulated datasets with no effect and injected relative risks of 1.25, 1.5, 2, 4, and 10, respectively. SUBJECTS: Longitudinal data for 10 million simulated patients were generated using a model derived from an administrative claims database, with associated demographics, periods of drug exposure derived from pharmacy dispensings, and medical conditions derived from diagnoses on medical claims. MEASURES: Simulation validation was performed through descriptive comparison with real source data. Method performance was evaluated using Area Under ROC Curve (AUC), bias, and mean squared error.

resultsOSIM2 replicates prevalence and types of confounding observed in real claims data. When simulated data are injected with relative risks (RR) ≥ 2, all designs have good predictive accuracy (AUC > 0.90), but when RR < 2, no methods achieve 100 % predictions. Each method exhibits a different bias profile, which changes with the effect size.

conclusionsOSIM2 can support methodological research. Results from simulation suggest method operating characteristics are far from nominal properties.

Indexed as

Research DesignAdultComputer SimulationDatabases, FactualDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsFemaleHumansMaleObservational Studies as TopicRisk Assessment

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.