Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40619597›Full record

ReviewPharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2025

Core Concepts in Pharmacoepidemiology: Multi-Database Distributed Data Networks.

Rachelle Haber, Michael Webster-Clark, Nicole Pratt, Nicola Barclay, Xue Li, Judith C Maro, Robert W Platt, Daniel Prieto-Alhambra, Kristian B Filion

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
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

9 authors.

Rachelle HaberCenter for Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute, Jewish General Hospital, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Michael Webster-ClarkCenter for Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute, Jewish General Hospital, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Nicole PrattQuality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Center, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8730-8910
Nicola BarclayNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, England, UK.
Xue LiDepartment of Medicine, School of Clinical Medicine, LKS Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, SAR, China.
Judith C MaroDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Robert W PlattCenter for Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute, Jewish General Hospital, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5981-8443
Daniel Prieto-AlhambraPharmaco- and Device Epidemiology Group, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3950-6346
Kristian B FilionCenter for Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute, Jewish General Hospital, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6055-0088

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multi-database distributed data networks for post-marketing surveillance of drug safety and effectiveness use two main approaches: common data models (CDMs) and common protocols. Networks such as the U.S. Sentinel System, the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) network, and the Data Analysis and Real-World Interrogation Network in Europe (DARWIN-EU) use a CDM approach in which participating databases are translated into a standardized structure so that a single, common analytic program can be used. On the other hand, the common protocol approach involves applying a single common protocol to site-specific data maintained in their native format, with analytic programs tailored to each data source. Some networks, such as the Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies (CNODES) and the Asian Pharmacoepidemiology Network (AsPEN), use a variety of approaches for multi-database studies. Regardless of the approach, distributed networks support comprehensive pharmacoepidemiologic studies by leveraging large-scale health data. For example, utilization studies can uncover prescribing trends in different jurisdictions and the impact of policy changes on drug use, while safety and effectiveness studies benefit from large, diverse patient populations, leading to increased precision, representativeness, and potential early detection of safety threats. Challenges include varying coding practices and data heterogeneity, which complicate the standardization of evidence and the comparability and generalizability of findings. In this Core Concepts paper, we review the purpose and different types of distributed data networks in pharmacoepidemiology, discuss their advantages and disadvantages, and describe commonly faced challenges and opportunities in conducting research using multi-database networks.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualPharmacoepidemiologyProduct Surveillance, PostmarketingDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHumansPharmacovigilancecommon data modeldistributed data networksdrug effectivenessdrug safetyreal‐world evidence

Identifiers

PMID40619597
PMCPMC12230205

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.