ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Drug spectrum and disproportionality signals for diabetes insipidus in FAERS: multi-method analysis, JADER cross-database assessment, and PubMed-based case-level evidence.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study is to characterize reporting patterns and non-treatment drug safety signals for diabetes insipidus (DI) in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), evaluate signal stability using crude, adjusted, and shrinkage-based disproportionality methods, and assess signal reproducibility in the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report (JADER). Methods: We analyzed FAERS (2004Q1-2025Q4) and JADER (2004-2025) reports. DI cases were defined by MedDRA Preferred Terms "Diabetes insipidus" and "Nephrogenic diabetes insipidus"; central DI-related lower-level terms mapped to "Diabetes insipidus" and were not separately retrievable. Drugs used for DI diagnosis/treatment or arginine vasopressin (AVP)-deficiency states were excluded during preprocessing. All eligible non-treatment primary suspect drug-DI pairs were screened, and the main multi-method summary focused on the 50 most frequently reported drugs. Published cases were summarized as case-level evidence, not comparative risk meta-analysis. Results: FAERS contained 3,444 Preferred Term (PT)-defined DI reports; 3,325 entered the main non-treatment analysis. Raw annual counts increased, whereas normalized reporting proportions fluctuated. Complete screening identified 112 crude reporting odds ratio (ROR)-positive drug-DI pairs. Among the frequency-ranked top 50, 47 met crude ROR criteria, 38 remained positive after adjustment, 32 met empirical Bayes geometric mean (EBGM) criteria, and 40 met information component (IC) criteria; in addition, 36 were positive in at least three methods. In JADER, 696 DI reports entered cross-database assessment; eight drugs met crude ROR criteria, eight met adjusted ROR criteria, three met EBGM criteria, and three met IC criteria. Lithium, hydrocortisone, and propofol were positive across all four JADER methods. Conclusion: After treatment-drug exclusion, DI reports clustered mainly among nervous system, antineoplastic/immunomodulating, and systemic hormonal agents. Several non-treatment drugs showed persistent disproportionality, but JADER support was limited. These findings are hypothesis-generating signals, not causal evidence.
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.