ArticlePloS one2025
Enhancing adverse drug reaction data quality in Canada: A high-precision pipeline for medication name standardization and enrichment.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Fluoroquinolones and the risk of panic attacks: a systematic review and disproportionality analysis using individual case safety reports from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2026Pooled it
- SafeRx: A Canonical Pharmaceutical Knowledge Integration Framework for Multimodal Medication Safety.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- RxMap: an LLM-assisted tool for medication normalization.JAMIA open · 2026Article
- Cross national pharmacovigilance analysis of drug-induced delirium: a comparative study using the US FAERS, Japanese JADER, and canadian CVAR datasets.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Canada Vigilance Adverse Reaction database is a vital pharmacovigilance tool, but its utility is severely limited by heterogeneity in medication nomenclature. A substantial portion (∼36.8%) of unique drug name variants in the database lack any mapping to an active ingredient, representing a critical data quality gap that can mask important adverse drug reaction (ADR) signals.
methodsWe developed, validated, and publicly released a high-precision, automated pipeline to standardize and enrich medication names. The pipeline employs a cascaded matching strategy that leverages the RxNorm and Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) vocabularies. Standardized names are assigned a RxNorm Concept Unique Identifier (RxCUI) and enriched with active ingredient data and Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classifications via RxNav APIs. The pipeline's accuracy was rigorously assessed by two independent experts on a balanced validation set of 200 cases.
resultsThe final pipeline successfully standardized 94.5% of the 46,585 unique drug names. A blinded expert validation confirmed high reliability, demonstrating a precision of 98.02% (95% CI: 0.9307-0.9946) and specificity of 97.22% (95% CI: 0.9043-0.9923). Case studies showed that standardization and aggregation of reports revealed known safety signals (e.g., mesalamine and asthenia) that were statistically undetectable in the raw data.
conclusionOur transparent and reproducible pipeline effectively resolves medication name heterogeneity in Canada's national ADR database. By transforming variable text into standardized concepts, it significantly enhances data quality, improves the sensitivity of safety signal detection, and facilitates interoperability with global health datasets. The publicly available tool provides a valuable resource for strengthening drug safety surveillance in Canada and beyond.
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.