ArticleAdvances in therapy2021
Using an Automated Algorithm to Identify Potential Drug-Induced Liver Injury Cases in a Pharmacovigilance Database.
Article in Advances in therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pharmacovigilance in China: Evolution and future challenges.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDrug-induced liver injury (DILI) is the most frequent cause of acute liver failure in North America and Europe, but it is often missed because of unstandardized diagnostic methods and criteria. This study aimed to develop and validate an automated algorithm to identify potential DILI cases in routine pharmacovigilance (PV) activities.
methodsPost-marketing hepatic adverse events reported for a potentially hepatotoxic drug in a global PV database from 19 March 2017 to 18 June 2018 were assessed manually and with the automated algorithm. The algorithm provided case assessments by applying pre-specified criteria to all case data and narratives simultaneously.
resultsA total of 1456 cases were included for analysis and assessed manually. Sufficient data for algorithm assessment were available for 476 cases (32.7%). Of these cases, manual assessment identified 312 (65.5%) potential DILI cases while algorithm assessment identified 305 (64.1%) potential DILI cases. Comparison of manual and algorithm assessments demonstrated a sensitivity of 97.8% and a specificity of 79.3% for the algorithm. Given the prevalence of potential DILI cases in the population studied, the algorithm was calculated to have positive predictive value 56.3% and negative predictive value 99.2%. The time required for manual review compared to algorithm review suggested that application of the algorithm prior to manual screening would have resulted in a time savings of 42.2%.
conclusionAn automated algorithm to identify potential DILI cases was developed and successfully implemented. The algorithm demonstrated a high sensitivity, a high negative predictive value, along with significant efficiency and utility in a real-time PV database.
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.