The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A detection algorithm for drug-induced liver injury in medical information databases using the Japanese diagnostic scale and its comparison with the Council for International Organizations of medical sciences/the Roussel Uclaf causality assessment method scale
Abstract
Purpose: Drug‐induced liver injury (DILI) is one of the primary targets for pharmacovigilance using medical information databases (MIDs). Because of diagnostic complexity, a standardized method for identifying DILI using MIDs has not yet been established. We applied the Digestive Disease Week Japan 2004 (DDW‐J) scale, a Japanese clinical diagnostic criteria for DILI, to a DILI detection algorithm, and compared it with the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences/the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (CIOMS/RUCAM) scale to confirm its consistency. Characteristics of DILI cases identified by the DDW‐J algorithm were examined in two Japanese MIDs. Methods: Using an MID from the Hamamatsu University Hospital, we constructed a DILI detection algorithm on the basis of the DDW‐J scale. We then compared the findings between the DDW‐J and CIOMS/RUCAM scales. We examined the characteristics of DILI after antibiotic treatment in the Hamamatsu population and a second population that included data from 124 hospitals, which was derived from an MID from the Medical Data Vision Co., Ltd. We performed a multivariate logistic regression analysis to assess the possible DILI risk factors. Results: The concordance rate was 79.4% between DILI patients identified by the DDW‐J and CIOMS/RUCAM; the Spearman rank correlation coefficient was 0.952 (P < 0.0001). Men showed a significantly higher risk for DILI after antibiotic treatments in both MID populations. Conclusions: The DDW‐J and CIOMS/RUCAM algorithms were equivalent for identifying the DILI cases, confirming the utility of our DILI detection method using MIDs. This study provides evidence supporting the use of MID analyses to improve pharmacovigilance. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
The Digestive Disease Week-Japan 2004 score (DDW-J) is a modification of RUCAM that includes drug-lymphocyte stimulation test (DLST) results and peripheral eosinophilia.
“The Digestive Disease Week-Japan 2004 score (DDW-J) is a modification of the RUCAM with the inclusion of drug-lymphocyte stimulation test (DLST) results and peripheral eosinophilia.”
From Drug-induced liver injury. Part I: Classification, diagnosis and treatment (2025) · cites this paper as [38]
The DDW-J was shown to be superior to the original RUCAM in Japanese patients.
“Although the DDW-J was shown to be superior to the original RUCAM in Japanese patients”
From Drug-induced liver injury. Part I: Classification, diagnosis and treatment (2025) · cites this paper as [38]
The DDW-J score ranges from −5 to +17 points.
“Scores range from −5 to +17 points.”
From Drug-induced liver injury. Part I: Classification, diagnosis and treatment (2025) · cites this paper as [38]
The DDW-J is not currently used outside of Japan because of the lack of widely available and reproducible DLST assays.
“it is not currently used outside of Japan because of the lack of widely available and reproducible DLST assays [37, 38].”
From Drug-induced liver injury. Part I: Classification, diagnosis and treatment (2025) · cites this paper as [38]
Citations
Cites
Risk Factors for Idiosyncratic Drug-Induced Liver Injury
Chalasani, N., & Björnsson, E. (2010) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2010.04.001 · Cited by 347
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- 10.1038/clpt.2011.58 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1053/jhep.2002.34857 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1056/NEJMra052270 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1472-8206.2008.00566.x · DOI
- 10.1016/0895-4356(93)90101-6 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3748/wjg.14.6774 · DOI
- 10.2957/kanzo.48.219 · DOI
- 10.1002/pds.3388 · DOI
- 10.1002/pds.3470 · DOI
- 10.3414/ME9125 · DOI
- 10.2957/kanzo.46.85 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
AASLD practice guidance on drug, herbal, and dietary supplement–induced liver injury
Fontana, R. J., Liou, I., Reuben, A., Suzuki, A., Fiel, M. I., Lee, W., & Navarro, V. (2023) · Hepatology · doi:10.1002/hep.32689 · Cited by 340
Drug-induced liver injury: Asia Pacific Association of Study of Liver consensus guidelines
Devarbhavi, H., Aithal, G., Treeprasertsuk, S., Takikawa, H., Mao, Y., Shasthry, S. M., Hamid, S., Tan, S. S., Philips, C. A., George, J., et al. (2021) · Hepatology International · doi:10.1007/s12072-021-10144-3 · Cited by 181
Metadata
- Authors
- Hanatani, T., Sai, K., Tohkin, M., Segawa, K., Kimura, M., Hori, K., Kawakami, J., & Saito, Y.
- Affiliations
- Division of Medicinal Safety Science National Institute of Health Sciences Tokyo Japan
- Department of Regulatory Science, Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences Nagoya City University Aichi Japan
- Department of Medical Informatics Hamamatsu University School of Medicine Shizuoka Japan
- Department of Hospital Pharmacy Hamamatsu University School of Medicine Shizuoka Japan
- Venue
- Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-03-05
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 984-988
- ISSN
- 1053-8569
- 1099-1557
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 1
- Language
- en
- Funders
- Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan (H23-iyaku-shitei-025)
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