ArticleBMC bioinformatics2018
A simple method for exploring adverse drug events in patients with different primary diseases using spontaneous reporting system.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Immune-Related Adverse Events Associated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Scoping Review.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Integrative epidemiology and immunotranscriptomics uncover a risk and potential mechanism for cutaneous lymphoma unmasking or progression with dupilumab therapy.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2025Article
- Long-term hepatobiliary disorder associated with trastuzumab emtansine pharmacovigilance study using the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System database.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Drug fever: a narrative review.Annals of clinical epidemiology · 2023Article
- Predicting the side effects of drugs using matrix factorization on spontaneous reporting database.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Association between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor and aspiration pneumonia: disproportionality analysis using the spontaneous reporting system in Japan.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2020Article
- Signals of gastroesophageal reflux disease caused by incretin-based drugs: a disproportionality analysis using the Japanese adverse drug event report database.Journal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences · 2018Article
- SAEgnal: A Predictive Assessment Framework for Optimizing Safety Profiles in Immuno-Oncology Combination Trials.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational ScienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient background (e.g. age, sex, and primary disease) is an important factor to consider when monitoring adverse drug events (ADEs) for the purpose of pharmacovigilance. However, in disproportionality methods, when additional factors are considered, the number of combinations that have to be computed increases, and it becomes very difficult to explore the whole spontaneous reporting system (SRS). Since the signals need to be detected quickly in pharmacovigilance, a simple exploration method is required. Although association rule mining (AR) is commonly used for the analysis of large data, its application to pharmacovigilance is rare and there are almost no studies comparing AR with conventional signal detection methods.
methodsIn this study, in order to establish a simple method to explore ADEs in patients with kidney or liver injury as a background disease, the AR and proportional reporting ratio (PRR) signal detection methods were compared. We used oral medicine SRS data from the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report database (JADER), and used AR as the proposed search method and PRR as the conventional method for comparison. "Rule count ≥ 3", "min lift value > 1", and "min conviction value > 1" were used as the AR detection criteria, and the PRR detection criteria were "Rule count ≥3", "PRR ≥ 2", and "χ
resultsIn patients with kidney injury, the AR method had a sensitivity of 99.58%, specificity of 94.99%, and Youden's index of 0.946, while in patients with liver injury, the sensitivity, specificity, and Youden's index were 99.57%, 94.87%, and 0.944, respectively. Additionally, the lift value and the strength of the signal were positively correlated.
conclusionsIt was suggested that computation using AR might be simple with the detection power equivalent to that of the conventional signal detection method as PRR. In addition, AR can theoretically be applicable to SRS other than JADER. Therefore, complicated conditions (patient's background etc.) that must take factors other than the ADE into consideration can be easily explored by selecting the AR as the first screening for ADE exploration in pharmacovigilance using SRS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.