The upper bound to the relative reporting ratio-a measure of the impact of the violation of hidden assumptions underlying some disproportionality methods used in signal detection

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety

Volumn 23, Issue 8, 2014, Pages 787-794

  Van Holle, Lionel ^a   Bauchau, Vincent ^a  

^a GSK   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Conservative bias; EBGM; IC; Overstratification; Pharmacoepidemiology; Relative reporting ratio; Upper bound

Indexed keywords

RECOMBINANT HEPATITIS B VACCINE; ROTAVIRUS VACCINE; VACCINE;

ARTICLE; DRUG DATABASE; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELATIVE REPORTING RATIO; SIGNAL DETECTION; SPONTANEOUS REPORT DATABASE; BAYES THEOREM; DRUG-RELATED SIDE EFFECTS AND ADVERSE REACTIONS; FACTUAL DATABASE; PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

ADVERSE DRUG REACTION REPORTING SYSTEMS; BAYES THEOREM; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DRUG-RELATED SIDE EFFECTS AND ADVERSE REACTIONS; HUMANS; PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY; VACCINES;

EID: 84905031042     PISSN: 10538569     EISSN: 10991557     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pds.3556     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Bate A. A Bayesian neural network method for adverse drug reaction signal generation. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 54: 315-321.
2. Dumouchel W. Bayesian data mining in large frequency tables, with an application to the FDA spontaneous reporting system. Am Stat 1999; 53: 177-190.
3. Evans S. Use of proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) for signal generation from spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2001; 10: 483-486.
4. van Puijenbroek EP. A comparison of measures of disproportionality for signal detection in spontaneous reporting systems for adverse drug reactions. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2002; 11: 3-10.
5. Almenoff JS. Novel statistical tools for monitoring the safety of marketed drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2007; 82(2): 157-166.
6. Bate A, Evans SJW. Quantitative signal detection using spontaneous ADR reporting. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2009; 18: 427-436.
7. Jones ME. Bias in the standardized mortality ratio when using general population rates to estimate expected number of deaths, Am J Epidemiol 1998; 148(10): 1012-1017.
8. Gogolak VV. The effect of backgrounds in safety analysis: the impact of comparison cases on what you see, Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2003; 12: 249-252.
9. Almenoff J. Perspectives on the use of data mining in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf 2005; 28(11): 981-1007.
10. Norén N. Statistical methods for knowledge discovery in adverse drug reaction surveillance, Matematiska Institutionen 2007, http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-6764 (last accessed on 28 September 2012).
11. Kulldorf M. A maximized sequential probability ratio test for drug and vaccine safety surveillance. Sequential analysis 2011; 30: 58-78
12. Deshpande G. Data mining in drug safety - review of published threshold criteria for defining signals of disproportionate reporting, Pharmaceut Med 2010; 24 (1): 37-43.
13. Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease, J Natl Cancer Inst 1959; 22 (4): 718-749.
14. Szarfman A. Use of screening algorithms and computer systems to efficiently signal higher-than-expected combinations of drugs and events in the US FDA's spontaneous report database. Drug Saf 2002; 25(6): 381-392.
15. Van Holle L. Optimization of a quantitative signal detection algorithm for spontaneous reports of adverse events post immunization. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2012. DOI: 10.1002/pds.3392.
16. Hopstadius J. Impact of stratification on adverse drug reaction surveillance. Drug Saf 2008; 31 (11): 1035-1048.