Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29464448›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2018

Development and validation of an algorithm to identify drug-induced anaphylaxis in the Beijing Pharmacovigilance Database.

Ying Zhao, Haidong Lu, Sydney Thai, Xiaotong Li, John Hui, Huilin Tang, Suodi Zhai, Lulu Sun, Tiansheng Wang

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Pharmacovigilance in China: development and challenges.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2018
    Review
  4. Overview of this issue: pharmacovigilance, what is new?International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2018
    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

9 authors.

Ying ZhaoDepartment of Pharmacy, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Haidong LuDepartment of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Sydney ThaiDepartment of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Xiaotong LiDepartment of Pharmacy, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
John HuiDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Huilin TangDepartment of Epidemiology, Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Suodi ZhaiDepartment of Pharmacy, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Lulu SunDepartment of Pharmacy, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China. sunlulu@263.net.
Tiansheng WangDepartment of Pharmacy, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China. tianwang@unc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0980-8896

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Pharmacovigilance databases are utilized to identify serious adverse drug events (ADEs). In China, very few studies have evaluated the validity of using pharmacovigilance databases to identify drug-induced anaphylaxis (DIA). Objective We aimed to develop and validate an algorithm to identify DIA using the Beijing Pharmacovigilance Database (BPD). Setting ADEs from the BPD mainly spontaneously reported from 94 hospitals in Beijing, China. Method Using the diagnoses, we developed an algorithm to identify potential DIAs from the BPD between January 2004 and December 2014. A sample of 500 patients was randomly selected for chart abstraction. Two physician adjudicators assessed whether DIA occurred using the published clinical criteria as the gold standard. Main outcome measure Positive predictive values (PPVs) and 95% confidence intervals of the algorithm and algorithm criteria components were calculated. Results 500 patients (53.2% female; the mean age 48.2 years) with potential DIA were selected using the algorithm. 444 were adjudicated as having anaphylaxis by physicians. The PPV of the overall algorithm was 88.8% (95% CI 86.0-91.6%). PPV for the algorithm only using specific diagnoses of "anaphylactic shock", "anaphylactic reaction", and "anaphylactoid reaction [severe]" was 89.6% (95% CI 86.6-92.4%); this partial algorithm identified 387 (87.2%) DIAs. The diagnosis that identified the most DIAs (83.8%) was "anaphylactic shock", with a PPV of 91.6% (95% CI 88.9-94.3%). Conclusion The overall algorithm identified a greater number of DIAs than the algorithm that only used specific diagnoses; however, its PPV was slightly lower. We were able to identify DIAs with the algorithm we developed.

Indexed as

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsAlgorithmsPharmacovigilanceAdolescentAdultAgedAnaphylaxisChinaDatabases, FactualData MiningFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SafetyReproducibility of ResultsAlgorithmAnaphylaxisChinaPharmacoepidemiologyPharmacovigilancePositive predictive valueValidation

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.