Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29881732›Full record

ArticleEGEMS (Washington, DC)2017

Statistical Power for Postlicensure Medical Product Safety Data Mining.

Judith C Maro, Michael D Nguyen, Inna Dashevsky, Meghan A Baker, Martin Kulldorff

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EGEMS (Washington, DC), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 47% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Judith C MaroHarvard Medical School.
Michael D NguyenUnited States Food and Drug Administration.
Inna DashevskyHarvard Medical School.
Meghan A BakerHarvard Medical School.
Martin KulldorffBrigham and Women's Hospital.
Brigham and Women's Hospital · USUnited States Food and Drug Administration · USHarvard University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo perform sample size calculations when using tree-based scan statistics in longitudinal observational databases.

methodsTree-based scan statistics enable data mining on epidemiologic datasets where thousands of disease outcomes are organized into hierarchical tree structures with automatic adjustment for multiple testing. We show how to evaluate the statistical power of the unconditional and conditional Poisson versions. The null hypothesis is that there is no increase in the risk for any of the outcomes. The alternative is that one or more outcomes have an excess risk. We varied the excess risk, total sample size, frequency of the underlying event rate, and the level of across-the-board health care utilization. We also quantified the reduction in statistical power resulting from specifying a risk window that was too long or too short.

resultsFor 500,000 exposed people, we had at least 98 percent power to detect an excess risk of 1 event per 10,000 exposed for all outcomes. In the presence of potential temporal confounding due to across-the-board elevations of health care utilization in the risk window, the conditional tree-based scan statistic controlled type I error well, while the unconditional version did not. DISCUSSION: Data mining analyses using tree-based scan statistics expand the pharmacovigilance toolbox, ensuring adequate monitoring of thousands of outcomes of interest while controlling for multiple hypothesis testing. These power evaluations enable investigators to design and optimize implementation of retrospective data mining analyses.

Identifiers

PMID29881732
PMCPMC5982804
OpenAlexW2625199741

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.