Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32008183›Full record

ArticleDrug safety2020

Disproportionality Analysis for Pharmacovigilance Signal Detection in Small Databases or Subsets: Recommendations for Limiting False-Positive Associations.

Ola Caster, Yasunori Aoki, Lucie M Gattepaille, Birgitta Grundmark

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Drug safety, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 101 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
101citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

101 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

41 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Ola CasterUppsala Monitoring Centre, Box 1051, 751 40, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-2259-1716
Yasunori AokiUppsala Monitoring Centre, Box 1051, 751 40, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-5881-2023
Lucie M GattepailleUppsala Monitoring Centre, Box 1051, 751 40, Uppsala, Sweden.
Birgitta GrundmarkUppsala Monitoring Centre, Box 1051, 751 40, Uppsala, Sweden. birgitta.grundmark@who-umc.org.ORCID 0000-0002-2799-9374

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionUncovering safety signals through the collection and assessment of individual case reports remains a core pharmacovigilance activity. Despite the widespread use of disproportionality analysis in signal detection, recommendations are lacking on the minimum size of databases or subsets of databases required to yield robust results.

objectiveThis study aims to investigate the relationship between database size and robustness of disproportionality analysis, with regards to limiting spurious associations.

methodsThree types of subsets were created from the global database VigiBase: random subsets (500 replicates each of 11 fixed subset sizes between 250 and 100,000 reports), country-specific subsets (all 131 countries available in the original VigiBase extract) and subsets based on the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification. For each subset, a spuriousness rate was computed as the ratio between the number of drug-event combinations highlighted by disproportionality analysis in a permuted version of the subset and the corresponding number in the original subset. In the permuted data, all true reporting associations between drugs and adverse events were broken. Subsets with fewer than five original associations were excluded. Additionally, the set of disproportionately over-reported drug-event combinations in three specific countries at three different time points were clinically assessed for labelledness. These time points corresponded to database sizes of less than 10,000, 5000 and 1000 reports, respectively. All disproportionality analysis was based on the Information Component (IC), implemented as IC

resultsSpuriousness rates were below 0.15 for all 110 included countries regardless of subset size, with only seven countries (6%) exceeding the empirical threshold of 0.10 observed for large subsets. All 21 excluded countries had < 500 reports. For random subsets containing 3000-5000 or more reports, the higher end of observed spuriousness rates was close to 0.10. In the clinical assessment, the proportion of labelled or otherwise known drug-event combinations was very high (87-100%) across all countries and time points studied.

conclusionsTo mitigate the risk of highlighting spurious associations with disproportionality analysis, a minimum size of 500 reports is recommended for national databases. For databases or subsets that are not country-specific, our recommendation is 5000 reports. This study does not consider sensitivity, which is expected to be poor in smaller databases.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualData Interpretation, StatisticalFalse Positive ReactionsPharmacovigilanceAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsGlobal HealthHumans

Identifiers

PMID32008183
PMCPMC7165139

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.