ArticleDrug safety2021
Identification and Validation of Major Cardiovascular Events in the United Kingdom Data Sources Included in a Multi-database Post-authorization Safety Study of Prucalopride.
Article in Drug safety, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionA multinational post-authorization safety study assessed cardiovascular safety in initiators of prucalopride for chronic constipation compared with a matched cohort of polyethylene glycol 3350 initiators. The primary safety outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or in-hospital cardiovascular death. We report the validation process for MACE endpoints in United Kingdom (UK) data sources: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD GOLD), The Health Improvement Network (THIN), and the Information Services Division (ISD) Scotland.
methodsModified electronic algorithms from prior research identified potential MACE cases. Validation followed a common protocol, adapted for each database, with all information anonymized: (1) direct confirmation via linkage to hospital records (CPRD GOLD); (2) requests for additional clinical information through questionnaires (CPRD GOLD), free-text (THIN), or abstraction of hospital records (ISD); (3) manual review of electronic records of potential events retrieved by the algorithm (CPRD GOLD/THIN); and (4) event adjudication by three clinicians, blinded to exposure, for all remaining events.
resultsElectronic algorithms identified 260 potential MACE cases: 38 confirmed via linkage to hospital records (CPRD GOLD), 56 ruled out as non-cardiovascular death cases (THIN), and three unavailable for review (ISD), leaving 163 potential cases. After manual review with additional information (steps 2 and 3), 45 were considered noncases (CPRD GOLD/THIN). Upon final adjudication (step 4), remaining potential events were adjudicated as definite (n = 62), probable (n = 10), possible (n = 13), or noncases (n = 33).
conclusionsGiven the limitations of relying solely on computer algorithms to identify cardiovascular outcomes, validation with clinical review is essential to guide interpretation.
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.