ArticleDrug safety2026
Causal Inference Tools for Pharmacovigilance: Using Causal Graphs to Identify and Address Biases in Disproportionality Analysis.
Article in Drug safety, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Pitfalls of Disproportionality Analysis: Insights on Their Interwoven Complexity and a Front-End Mitigation Strategy.Drug safety · 2026Article
- Beyond Molecular Structures: Investigating Demographic Factors in Drug-Induced Cardiotoxicity Prediction Models.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026Article
- Proton Pump Inhibitors and Disproportionate Reporting of Acute Kidney Injury and Tubulointerstitial Nephritis: A FAERS Pharmacovigilance Study, 2020-2025.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Charting and Sidestepping the Pitfalls of Disproportionality Analysis.Drug safety · 2026Review
- When the City Speaks: How Urban Form Shapes the Cultural Transmission of Spatial Conceptualization.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2026Article
- Early post-marketing safety profile of resmetirom in FAERS: an exploratory assessment of statin co-reporting.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- The Development of Turn-Taking Skills in Typical Development and Autism.Cognitive science · 2025Article
- Ivabradine, atrial fibrillation and stroke: a combined meta-analysis and FAERS disproportionality analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- The reporting of disproportionality analysis in pharmacovigilance: spotlight on the READUS-PV guideline.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Lessons for Theory from Scientific Domains Where Evidence is Sparse or Indirect.Computational brain & behavior · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDisproportionality analysis, finding associations in the co-reporting of drugs and events, is widely used in pharmacovigilance to detect potential safety signals of adverse drug reactions. However, inherent biases and unique data features often cause disproportionality to diverge from causation, and a comprehensive framework to address these issues is lacking.
objectiveWe showcase how directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) can enhance disproportionality analysis-related inferences, better qualifying its limitations and catalysing its inclusion in the broader evidence landscape.
methodsWe introduce a DAG-based causal framework to systematically document and address biases in disproportionality analyses (e.g., confounding, colliders, measurement and reporting biases). We illustrate its application to case studies from the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System-using the Information Component as a disproportionality metric and restriction as conditioning.
resultsDirected acyclic graphs facilitate the formalisation of existing knowledge and causal assumptions, optimise the design of disproportionality analysis to mitigate biases-thereby enhancing sensitivity and specificity-improve transparency, better enable the formulation of critiques, highlight limitations of disproportionality and guide follow-up studies to address residual confounding and broader evidence synthesis.
conclusionUsing DAGs to map and mitigate biases requires caution and does not allow to obtain definitive answers to causal questions. Still, it results in more reliable and knowledge-based safety signals, reducing and mapping the gap between what we find (association) and what we look for (causation). Additional research should further tailor DAGs to pharmacovigilance challenges, map the generative mechanisms of pharmacovigilance data, and better integrate disproportionality analysis results into evidence-synthesis workflows.
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.