ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2019
Identifying signals of potentially harmful medications in pregnancy: use of the double false discovery rate method to adjust for multiple testing.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The EUROmediCAT Network and Databases: A Resource for Pharmacovigilance in Pregnancy.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2026Article
- Article
- Identifying signals of potentially harmful medications in pregnancy: use of the double false discovery rate method to adjust for multiple testing.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsSurveillance of medication use in pregnancy is essential to identify associations between first trimester medications and congenital anomalies (CAs). Medications in the same Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classes may have similar effects. We aimed to use this information to improve the detection of potential teratogens in CA surveillance data.
methodsData on 15 058 malformed fetuses with first trimester medication exposures from 1995-2011 were available from EUROmediCAT, a network of European CA registries. For each medication-CA combination, the proportion of the CA in fetuses with the medication was compared to the proportion of the CA in all other fetuses in the dataset. The Australian classification system was used to identify high-risk medications in order to compare two methods of controlling the false discovery rate (FDR): a single FDR applied across all combinations, and a double FDR incorporating groupings of medications.
resultsThere were 28 765 potential combinations (523 medications × 55 CAs) for analysis. An FDR cut-off of 50% resulted in a reasonable effective workload, for which single FDR gave rise to eight medication signals (three high-risk medications) and double FDR 50% identified 16 signals (six high-risk). Over a range of FDR cut-offs, double FDR identified more high-risk medications as signals, for comparable effective workloads.
conclusionsThe double FDR method appears to improve the detection of potential teratogens in comparison to the single FDR, while maintaining a low risk of false positives. Use of double FDR is recommended in routine signal detection analyses of CA data.
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.