Selected control events and reporting odds ratio in signal detection methodology

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety

Volumn 19, Issue 11, 2010, Pages 1159-1165

  Ooba, Nobuhiro ^a   Kubota, Kiyoshi ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

Author keywords

Control selection; Drug use investigation; Relative risk; Reporting odds ratio; Signal detection; Spontaneous reports

Indexed keywords

ADVERSE DRUG REACTION; ARTICLE; DRUG USE; EXPOSURE; HUMAN; INCIDENCE; JAPAN; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK; RISK FACTOR; SIGNAL DETECTION;

ADVERSE DRUG REACTION REPORTING SYSTEMS; DATA MINING; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; JAPAN; ODDS RATIO; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS;

EID: 78049269938     PISSN: 10538569     EISSN: 10991557     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pds.2014     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Bate A, Evans SJ. Quantitative signal detection using spontaneous ADR reporting. Pharmacoepiedemiol Drug Saf 2009; 18: 427-436. 10.1002/pds.1742.
2. Kubota K, Koide D, Hirai T. Comparison of data mining methodologies using Japanese spontaneous reports. Pharmacoepiedemiol Drug Saf 2004; 13: 387-394. 10.1002/pds.964.
3. Evans SJ, Waller PC, Davis S. Use of proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) for signal generation from spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports. Pharmacoepiedemiol Drug Saf 2001; 10: 483-486. 10.1002/pds.677.
4. van Puijenbroek EP, van Grootheest K, Diemont WL, et al. Determinants of signal selection in a spontaneous reporting system for adverse drug reactions. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2001; 52: 579-586. 10.1046/j. 0306-5251. 2001.01501.x.
5. DuMouchel W, Fram D, Yang X, et al. Antipsychotics, glycemic disorders, and life-threatening diabetic events: a Bayesian data-mining analysis of the FDA adverse event reporting system (1968-2004). Ann Clin Psychiatry 2008; 20: 21-31. 10.1080/10401230701844612.
6. Orre R, Lansner A, Bate A, Lindquist M. Bayesian neural networks with confidence estimations applied to data mining. Comput Stat Data Anal 2000; 34: 473-493. 10.1016/S0167-9473(99)00114-0.
7. Waller P, van Puijenbroek E, Egberts A, Evans S. The reporting odds ratio versus the proportional reporting ratio: 'deuce'. Pharmacoepiedemiol Drug Saf 2004; 13: 525-526. 10.1002/pds.1002.
8. Rothman KJ, Lanes S, Sacks ST. The reporting odds ratio and its advantages over the proportional reporting ratio. Pharmacoepiedemiol Drug Saf 2004; 13: 519-523. 10.1002/pds.1001.
9. Rothman KJ, Lanes S, Sacks ST. Measuring drug effects means getting a clearer signal. Pharmacoepiedemiol Drug Saf 2004; 13: 527-528. 10.1002/pds.1003.
10. MHLW. On Japanese Pharmaceutical Affaires Law (in Japanese). [January 11, 2010].
11. Tanaka K, Morita Y, Kawabe E, Kubota K. Drug use investigation (DUI) and prescription-event monitoring in Japan (J-PEM). Pharmacoepiedemiol Drug Saf 2001; 10: 653-658. 10.1002/pds.642.
12. Bate A, Lindquist M, Edwards IR. The application of knowledge discovery in databases to post-marketing drug safety: example of the WHO database. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 2008; 22: 127-140. 10.1111/j. 1472-8206. 2007.00552.x.
13. Hazell L, Shakir SAW. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions. Drug Saf 2006; 29: 385-396. 10.2165/00002018-200629050-00003.
14. Iyaku-hin-fuku-sayou-youran (Overview for ADRs): volume 1, 2 and 3 (in Japanese). Elsevier Japan Co. Ltd, 1991, 1998 and 2004.
15. PMDA. On the data of spontaneous reports (in Japanese). [January 11, 2010].
16. Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Modern Epidemiology (3rd edn). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: Philadelphia, 2008.
17. Miettinen OS, Wang JD. An alternative to the proportionate mortality ratio. Am J Epidemiol 1981; 114: 144-148.
18. Walker AM. Observation and Inference: An Introduction to the Methods of Epidemiology. Epidemiology Resource, Inc.: MA, 1991.
19. The Uppsala Monitoring Centre. Vigibase. Safety monitoring of ARVs. [January 11, 2010].
20. Shakir SAW. Prescription-event monitoring. In Pharmacoepidemiology (4th edn). Strom BL (ed). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: England, 2005; 203-216.