Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41381798›Full record

ArticleDrug safety2026

Causal Inference Tools for Pharmacovigilance: Using Causal Graphs to Identify and Address Biases in Disproportionality Analysis.

Michele Fusaroli, Joseph Mitchell, Annette Rudolph, Elena Rocca, Riccardo Fusaroli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

5 authors.

Michele FusaroliUnit of Pharmacology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. michele.fusaroli@who-umc.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0254-2212
Joseph MitchellSignal Management Section, WHO Liaison Department, Uppsala Monitoring Centre, Uppsala, Sweden.
Annette RudolphSignal Management Section, WHO Liaison Department, Uppsala Monitoring Centre, Uppsala, Sweden.
Elena RoccaDepartment of Life Sciences and Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.
Riccardo FusaroliDepartment of Linguistics, Cognitive Science and Semiotics, School of Communication and Culture, Aarhus University, Aarhus C, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsPharmacovigilanceBiasCausalityHumansUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug Administration

Identifiers

PMID41381798
PMCPMC13002730

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.