Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28087585›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2017

Standard-based comprehensive detection of adverse drug reaction signals from nursing statements and laboratory results in electronic health records.

Suehyun Lee, Jiyeob Choi, Hun-Sung Kim, Grace Juyun Kim, Kye Hwa Lee, Chan Hee Park, Jongsoo Han, Dukyong Yoon, Man Young Park, Rae Woong Park and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  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

12 authors.

Suehyun LeeDivision of Biomedical Informatics, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Jiyeob ChoiDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Seoul National University Graduate School, Seoul, Korea.
Hun-Sung KimDepartment of Medical Informatics and Internal Medicine, St. Mary Hospital, Catholic University, Seoul, Korea.
Grace Juyun KimDivision of Biomedical Informatics, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Kye Hwa LeeDivision of Biomedical Informatics, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Chan Hee ParkDivision of Biomedical Informatics, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Jongsoo HanDivision of Biomedical Informatics, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Dukyong YoonDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea.
Man Young ParkMibyeong Research Center, Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine, Daejeon, South Korea.
Rae Woong ParkDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea.
Hye-Ryun KangDepartment of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Ju Han KimDivision of Biomedical Informatics, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe propose 2 Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities-enabled pharmacovigilance algorithms, MetaLAB and MetaNurse, powered by a per-year meta-analysis technique and improved subject sampling strategy. MATRIALS AND

methodsThis study developed 2 novel algorithms, MetaLAB for laboratory abnormalities and MetaNurse for standard nursing statements, as significantly improved versions of our previous electronic health record (EHR)-based pharmacovigilance method, called CLEAR. Adverse drug reaction (ADR) signals from 117 laboratory abnormalities and 1357 standard nursing statements for all precautionary drugs ( n   = 101) were comprehensively detected and validated against SIDER (Side Effect Resource) by MetaLAB and MetaNurse against 11 817 and 76 457 drug-ADR pairs, respectively.

resultsWe demonstrate that MetaLAB (area under the curve, AUC = 0.61 ± 0.18) outperformed CLEAR (AUC = 0.55 ± 0.06) when we applied the same 470 drug-event pairs as the gold standard, as in our previous research. Receiver operating characteristic curves for 101 precautionary terms in the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities Preferred Terms were obtained for MetaLAB and MetaNurse (0.69 ± 0.11; 0.62 ± 0.07), which complemented each other in terms of ADR signal coverage. Novel ADR signals discovered by MetaLAB and MetaNurse were successfully validated against spontaneous reports in the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System database. DISCUSSION: The present study demonstrates the symbiosis of laboratory test results and nursing statements for ADR signal detection in terms of their system organ class coverage and performance profiles.

conclusionSystematic discovery and evaluation of the wide spectrum of ADR signals using standard-based observational electronic health record data across many institutions will affect drug development and use, as well as postmarketing surveillance and regulation.

Indexed as

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsAlgorithmsClinical Laboratory Information SystemsNursing RecordsPharmacovigilanceArea Under CurveElectronic Health RecordsHumansROC Curveadverse drug reactionsalgorithmslaboratory abnormalitiespharmacovigilancepostmarketing surveillancestandard nursing statements

Identifiers

PMID28087585
PMCPMC7651894

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.