Cited by 49Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug ReactionsAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Design considerations in an active medical product safety monitoring system.

Open access
Gagne, Joshua J., Fireman, Bruce, Ryan, Patrick B., Maclure, Malcolm, Gerhard, Tobias, Toh, Sengwee, Rassen, Jeremy A., Nelson, Jennifer C. +1 more·2012·Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety

Abstract

Active medical product monitoring systems, such as the Sentinel System, will utilize electronic healthcare data captured during routine health care. Safety signals that arise from these data may be spurious because of chance or bias, particularly confounding bias, given the observational nature of the data. Applying appropriate monitoring designs can filter out many false-positive and false-negative associations from the outset. Designs can be classified by whether they produce estimates based on between-person or within-person comparisons. In deciding which approach is more suitable for a given monitoring scenario, stakeholders must consider the characteristics of the monitored product, characteristics of the health outcome of interest (HOI), and characteristics of the potential link between these. Specifically, three factors drive design decisions: (i) strength of within-person and between-person confounding; (ii) whether circumstances exist that may predispose to misclassification of exposure or misclassification of the timing of the HOI; and (iii) whether the exposure of interest is predominantly transient or sustained. Additional design considerations include whether to focus on new users, the availability of appropriate active comparators, the presence of an exposure time trend, and the measure of association of interest. When the key assumptions of self-controlled designs are fulfilled (i.e., lack of within-person, time-varying confounding; abrupt HOI onset; and transient exposure), within-person comparisons are preferred because they inherently avoid confounding by fixed factors. The cohort approach generally is preferred in other situations and particularly when timing of exposure or outcome is uncertain because cohort approaches are less vulnerable to biases resulting from misclassification.

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.2316

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Greenland S. A unified approach to the analysis of case-distribution (case-only) studies. Stat Med 1999; 18: 1-15.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gagne, J. J., Fireman, B., Ryan, P. B., Maclure, M., Gerhard, T., Toh, S., Rassen, J. A., Nelson, J. C., & Schneeweiss, S.
Affiliations
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
  • Johnson & Johnson (United States) (US)
  • Ministry of Health (CA)
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Gagne, Joshua J.
Venue
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-01
Volume
21
Issue
S1
Pages
32-40
ISSN
  • 1053-8569 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1557
OpenAlex
W1819504360
Cited by
49
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 5
FWCI
10.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHSF223200910006I)
  • Hamilton Health Sciences Foundation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
Sentinel System, self-controlled designs, cohort studies, confounding, electronic health data, new users
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Equipment and Supplies, Humans, Product Surveillance, Postmarketing, Epidemiologic Research Design, Bias, Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic, Databases, Factual, Program Development, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Electronic Health Records, Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions

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