ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2021
Exploring Completeness of Adverse Event Reports as a Tool for Signal Detection in Pharmacovigilance.
Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2021. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCompleteness of adverse event (AE) reports is an important component of quality for good pharmacovigilance practices. We aimed to evaluate the impact of incorporating a measure of completeness of AE reports on quantitative signal detection.
methodsAn internal safety database from a global pharmaceutical company was used in the analysis. vigiGrade, an index score of completeness, was derived for each AE report. Data from various patient support programs (PSPs) were categorized based on average vigiGrade score per PSP. Performance of signal detection was compared between: (1) weighting and not weighting by vigiGrade score; and, (2) well documented and poorly documented PSPs using sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) and time-to-signal detection.
resultsThe ability to detect signals did not differ significantly when weighting by vigiGrade score [sensitivity (50% vs. 45%, p = 1), specificity (82.8% vs. 82.8%, p = 1), AUC (0.66 vs. 0.63, p = 0.051) or time-to-signal detection (HR 0.81, p = 0.63)] compared to not weighting. Well documented PSPs were better at detecting signals than poorly documented PSPs (AUC 0.66 vs. 0.52; p = 0.041) but time-to-signal detection did not differ significantly (HR 1.54, p = 0.42).
conclusionCompleteness of AE reports did not significantly impact the ability to detect signals when weighting by vigiGrade score or restricting the database based on the level of completeness. While the vigiGrade helps provide quality assessments of AE reports and prioritize cases for review, our findings indicate the tool might not be useful for quantitative signal detection when used by itself.
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.