The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A comparison of measures of disproportionality for signal detection in spontaneous reporting systems for adverse drug reactions
Abstract
Purpose: A continuous systematic review of all combinations of drugs and suspected adverse reactions (ADRs) reported to a spontaneous reporting system, is necessary to optimize signal detection. To focus attention of human reviewers, quantitative procedures can be used to sift data in different ways. In various centres, different measures are used to quantify the extent to which an ADR is reported disproportionally to a certain drug compared to the generality of the database. The objective of this study is to examine the level of concordance of the various estimates to the measure used by the WHO Collaborating Centre for International ADR monitoring, the information component (IC), when applied to the dataset of the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Foundation Lareb. Methods: The Reporting Odds Ratio−1.96 standard errors (SE), proportional reporting ratio−1.96 SE, Yule's Q−1.96 SE, the Poisson probability and Chi‐square test of all 17 330 combinations were compared with the IC minus 2 standard deviations. Additionally, the concordance of the various tests, in respect to the number of reports per combination, was examined. Results: In general, sensitivity was high in respect to the reference measure when a combination of point‐ and precision estimate was used. The concordance increased dramatically when the number of reports per combination increased. Conclusion: This study shows that the different measures used are broadly comparable when four or more cases per combination have been collected. Copyright © 2001 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The Advanced Theory of Statistics
L., S., Kendall, M. G., & Stuart, A. (1963) · Population (French Edition) · doi:10.2307/1527192 · Cited by 1,827
A Bayesian neural network method for adverse drug reaction signal generation
Bate, A., Lindquist, M., Edwards, I. R., Olsson, S., Orre, R., Lansner, A., & De Freitas, R. M. (1998) · European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · doi:10.1007/s002280050466 · Cited by 1,476
Self-citationThe Advanced Theory of Statistics.
Watson, G. S., Kendall, M., Stuart, A., & Ord, K. (1984) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2288735 · Cited by 921
Dumouchel, W. (1999) · The American Statistician · doi:10.1080/00031305.1999.10474456 · Cited by 878
The Advanced Theory of Statistics.
P., E. S., & Kendall, M. G. (1944) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society · doi:10.2307/2981279 · Cited by 660
The Advanced Theory of Statistics.
Wald, A., & Kendall, M. G. (1947) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2280203 · Cited by 349
Principles of Signal Detection in Pharmacovigilance
Meyboom, R. H. B., Egberts, A. C. G., Edwards, I. R., Hekster, Y. A., de Koning, F. H. P., & Gribnau, F. W. J. (1997) · Drug Safety · doi:10.2165/00002018-199716060-00002 · Cited by 239
Self-citationLindquist, M., St??hl, M., Bate, A., Edwards, I. R., & Meyboom, R. H. B. (2000) · Drug Safety · doi:10.2165/00002018-200023060-00004 · Cited by 230
Self-citationStatistical Logic in the Monitoring of Reactions to Therapeutic Drugs
FINNEY, D. J. (1971) · Methods of Information in Medicine · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1636052 · Cited by 211
Olsson, S. (1998) · Drug Safety · doi:10.2165/00002018-199819010-00001 · Cited by 181
Cited by
Data Mining of the Public Version of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System
Sakaeda, T., Tamon, A., Kadoyama, K., & Okuno, Y. (2013) · International Journal of Medical Sciences · doi:10.7150/ijms.6048 · Cited by 1,048
Case-non-case studies: principle, methods, bias and interpretation
Faillie, J.-L. (2019) · Therapies · doi:10.1016/j.therap.2019.01.006 · Cited by 336
GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and the Risk of Thyroid Cancer
Bezin, J., Gouverneur, A., Pénichon, M., Mathieu, C., Garrel, R., Hillaire-Buys, D., Pariente, A., & Faillie, J.-L. (2023) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc22-1148 · Cited by 320
A curated and standardized adverse drug event resource to accelerate drug safety research
Banda, J. M., Evans, L., Vanguri, R. S., Tatonetti, N. P., Ryan, P. B., & Shah, N. H. (2016) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.26 · Cited by 246
Liu, L., Chen, J., Wang, L., Chen, C., & Chen, L. (2022) · Frontiers in Endocrinology · doi:10.3389/fendo.2022.1043789 · Cited by 258
Metadata
- Authors
- van Puijenbroek, E. P., Bate, A., Leufkens, H. G. M., Lindquist, M., Orre, R., & Egberts, A. C. G.
- Venue
- Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-01
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-10
- ISSN
- 1053-8569 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1557
- OpenAlex
- W2064716383
- Cited by
- 1,372
- References
- 21
- FWCI
- 16.16
- 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: A comparison of measures of disproportionality for signal detection in spontaneous reporting systems for adverse drug reactions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/pds.668
- The paper
- van Puijenbroek, E. P., Bate, A., Leufkens, H. G. M., Lindquist, M., Orre, R., & Egberts, A. C. G. (2002). A comparison of measures of disproportionality for signal detection in spontaneous reporting systems for adverse drug reactions. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety. https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.668
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.
