Literature DB >> 17604412

Signal detection: historical background.

Toine C G Egberts1.   

Abstract

A primary aim in pharmacovigilance is the timely detection of either new adverse drug reactions (ADRs) or a relevant change of the frequency of ADRs that are already known to be associated with the drugs involved, i.e. signal detection. Adequate signal detection solely based on the human intellect (case-by-case analysis or qualitative signal detection) has proven its value. However, it is becoming increasingly time consuming given the growing volume of data, as well as less effective, especially in more complex associations, such as drug-drug interactions, syndromes and when various covariates are involved. In quantitative signal detection, measures that express the extent in which combinations of drug(s) and clinical event(s) are disproportionately present in the database of reported suspected ADRs are used to reveal associations of interest. Although the rationale and the methodology of the various quantitative approaches differ, they all share the characteristic in that they express to what extent the number of observed cases differs from the number of expected cases. Recent years have shown that the use of quantitative measures in addition to qualitative analysis is a step forward in signal detection in pharmacovigilance. This paper uses historical, classic examples and studies to illustrate the principles, pros and cons of especially quantitative methods in signal detection and adds a flavour of future perspective.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17604412     DOI: 10.2165/00002018-200730070-00006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Drug Saf        ISSN: 0114-5916            Impact factor:   5.606


  12 in total

1.  A comparison of measures of disproportionality for signal detection in spontaneous reporting systems for adverse drug reactions.

Authors:  Eugène P van Puijenbroek; Andrew Bate; Hubert G M Leufkens; Marie Lindquist; Roland Orre; Antoine C G Egberts
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2002 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.890

2.  THE DESIGN AND LOGIC OF A MONITOR OF DRUG USE.

Authors:  D J FINNEY
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1965-01

3.  Risk of cholestatic liver disease associated with flucloxacillin and flucloxacillin prescribing habits in the UK: cohort study using data from the UK General Practice Research Database.

Authors:  Stefan Russmann; James A Kaye; Susan S Jick; Hershel Jick
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 4.335

4.  Quality criteria for early signals of possible adverse drug reactions.

Authors:  I R Edwards; M Lindquist; B E Wiholm; E Napke
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1990-07-21       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Identification of adverse reactions to new drugs. II--How were 18 important adverse reactions discovered and with what delays?

Authors:  G R Venning
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1983-01-22

6.  Identification of adverse reactions to new drugs. II (continued): How were 18 important adverse reactions discovered and with what delays?

Authors:  G R Venning
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1983-01-29

7.  Identification of adverse reactions to new drugs. I: What have been the important adverse reactions since thalidomide?

Authors:  G R Venning
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1983-01-15

8.  Identification of adverse reactions to new drugs. IV--Verification of suspected adverse reactions.

Authors:  G R Venning
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1983-02-12

9.  Identification of adverse reactions to new drugs. III: Alerting processes and early warning systems.

Authors:  G R Venning
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1983-02-05

10.  Anti-HERG activity and the risk of drug-induced arrhythmias and sudden death.

Authors:  M L De Bruin; M Pettersson; R H B Meyboom; A W Hoes; H G M Leufkens
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2005-01-06       Impact factor: 29.983

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Today's challenges in pharmacovigilance: what can we learn from epoetins?

Authors:  Hans C Ebbers; Aukje K Mantel-Teeuwisse; Ellen H M Moors; Huub Schellekens; Hubert G Leufkens
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2011-04-01       Impact factor: 5.606

2.  A Review of Pharmacovigilance.

Authors:  J E Campbell; M Gossell-Williams; M G Lee
Journal:  West Indian Med J       Date:  2015-03-05       Impact factor: 0.171

3.  Safety of herbal products in Thailand: an analysis of reports in the thai health product vigilance center database from 2000 to 2008.

Authors:  Surasak Saokaew; Wimon Suwankesawong; Unchalee Permsuwan; Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2011-04-01       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 4.  Post-approval drug safety surveillance.

Authors:  Robert D Gibbons; Anup K Amatya; C Hendricks Brown; Kwan Hur; Sue M Marcus; Dulal K Bhaumik; J John Mann
Journal:  Annu Rev Public Health       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 21.981

5.  Impact of literature reports on drug safety signals.

Authors:  Bartlomiej Ochyra; Maciej Szewczyk; Adam Przybylkowski
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  2020-05-26       Impact factor: 1.704

6.  Reducing the noise in signal detection of adverse drug reactions by standardizing the background: a pilot study on analyses of proportional reporting ratios-by-therapeutic area.

Authors:  Birgitta Grundmark; Lars Holmberg; Hans Garmo; Björn Zethelius
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2014-03-07       Impact factor: 2.953

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.