Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 259

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Combining electronic healthcare databases in Europe to allow for large‐scale drug safety monitoring: the EU‐ADR Project

Coloma, Preciosa M., Schuemie, Martijn J., Trifirò, Gianluca, Gini, Rosa, Herings, Ron, Hippisley‐Cox, Julia, Mazzaglia, Giampiero, Giaquinto, Carlo, Corrao, Giovanni, Pedersen, Lars, van der Lei, Johan, Sturkenboom, Miriam, on behalf of the EU‐ADR consortium·2011·Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety

Abstract

Purpose: In this proof‐of‐concept paper we describe the framework, process, and preliminary results of combining data from European electronic healthcare record (EHR) databases for large‐scale monitoring of drug safety. Methods: Aggregated demographic, clinical, and prescription data from eight databases in four countries (Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, the UK) were pooled using a distributed network approach by generation of common input data followed by local aggregation through custom‐built software, Jerboa©. Comparison of incidence rates of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) and nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drug (NSAID) utilization patterns were used to evaluate data harmonization and quality across databases. The known association of NSAIDs and UGIB was employed to demonstrate sensitivity of the system by comparing incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of UGIB during NSAID use to UGIB during all other person‐time. Results: The study population for this analysis comprised 19 647 445 individuals corresponding to 59 929 690 person‐years of follow‐up. 39 967 incident cases of UGIB were identified during the study period. Crude incidence rates varied between 38.8 and 109.5/100 000 person‐years, depending on country and type of database, while age‐standardized rates ranged from 25.1 to 65.4/100 000 person‐years. NSAID use patterns were similar for databases within the same country but heterogeneous among different countries. A statistically significant age‐ and gender‐adjusted association between use of any NSAID and increased risk for UGIB was confirmed in all databases, IRR from 2.0 (95%CI:1.7–2.2) to 4.3 (95%CI: 4.1–4.5). Conclusions: Combining data from EHR databases of different countries to identify drug‐adverse event associations is feasible and can set the stage for changing and enlarging the scale for drug safety monitoring. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pds.2053

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 259

Metadata

Authors
Coloma, P. M., Schuemie, M. J., Trifirò, G., Gini, R., Herings, R., Hippisley‐Cox, J., Mazzaglia, G., Giaquinto, C., Corrao, G., Pedersen, L., van der Lei, J., Sturkenboom, M., & on behalf of the EU‐ADR consortium
Venue
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-11-08
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
1-11
ISSN
  • 1053-8569 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1557
OpenAlex
W2148303708
Cited by
259
References
3
FWCI
30.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Combining electronic healthcare databases in Europe to allow for large‐scale drug safety monitoring: the EU‐ADR Project. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/pds.2053
The paper
Coloma, P. M., Schuemie, M. J., Trifirò, G., Gini, R., Herings, R., Hippisley‐Cox, J., Mazzaglia, G., Giaquinto, C., Corrao, G., Pedersen, L., van der Lei, J., Sturkenboom, M., & on behalf of the EU‐ADR consortium. (2011). Combining electronic healthcare databases in Europe to allow for large‐scale drug safety monitoring: the EU‐ADR Project. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety. https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.2053

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.