ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Trends in the use of validated claims-based algorithms in Japanese post-marketing database studies.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. 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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In pharmacoepidemiological research, misclassification is a concern with claims-based algorithms (also called computable phenotypes). Validating them is crucial, particularly within regulatory settings. However, the extent of their application remains unclear globally. Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the frequency and trends of validated claims-based algorithms use in post-marketing database studies. Method: We reviewed all Japanese risk management plans published until January 2023, identifying four issue types [Effectiveness Issues (EI), Important Identified Risks (IIR), Important Potential Risks (IPR), and Important Missing Information (IMI)] that were planned to use a claims-based algorithm in post-marketing database studies. We then calculated the proportion of issues intending to use a validated claims-based algorithm, and performed subgroup analyses by issue type. Results: Of 68 issues (3 EI, 47 IIR, 13 IPR, 5 IMI), 15 (22.1%) planned to use a validated algorithm, all for outcome definitions; 10 to conduct new validation studies and 5 to refer to existing studies, including studies with high positive predictive value and sensitivity. Subgroup analyses by issue type showed that the proportions were 100% for EI, 17.0% for IIR, 30.8% for IPR, and 0% for IMI. Conclusion: Validated algorithm use was the highest for effectiveness issues but limited for safety, suggesting that results from these post-marketing database studies for safety issues may not provide sufficient evidence, highlighting the need to promote the use of validated claims-based algorithms. Future studies should use more recent data, compare the use of validated algorithms between Japan and other countries, and explore barriers to their adoption.
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.