The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Use of proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) for signal generation from spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports
Abstract
Background: The process of generating ‘signals’ of possible unrecognized hazards from spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting data has been likened to looking for a needle in a haystack. However, statistical approaches to the data have been underutilised. Methods: Using the UK Yellow Card database, we have developed and evaluated a statistical aid to signal generation called a Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR). The proportion of all reactions to a drug which are for a particular medical condition of interest is compared to the same proportion for all drugs in the database, in a 2 × 2 table. We investigated a group of newly‐marketed drugs using as minimum criteria for a signal, 3 or more cases, PRR at least 2, chi‐squared of at least 4. Findings: The database was used to examine retrospectively 15 drugs newly‐marketed in the UK, with the highest levels of ADR reporting. The method identified 481 signals meeting the minimum criteria during the period 1996–8. Further evaluation of these showed that 70% were known adverse reactions, 13% were events which were likely to be related to the underlying disease and 17% were signals requiring further evaluation. Implications: Proportional reporting ratios are a valuable aid to signal generation from spontaneous reporting data which are easy to calculate and interpret, and various refinements are possible. © Crown copyright 2001. Reproduced with the permission of Her Majesty's Stationary Office. Published by 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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1557(199611)5:6<363::AID-PDS249>3.0.CO;2-7 · DOI
- Wood SM, 1993, Adverse Drug Reactions On‐line Information Tracking (ADROIT), Pharmaceutical Medicine, 7, 203
- 10.1111/j.1365-2125.1994.tb04373.x · DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.315.7107.500 · DOI
- Speirs CJ, 1986, Iatrogenic Diseases, 93
- Grant EM, 1998, Electronic Communication Technologies‐Techniques and Technologies for the 21st Century, 551
- Finney DJ, 1974, Systematic signalling of adverse reactions to drugs, Meth Inf Med, 13, 1, 10.1055/s-0038-1636131 · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1636131
- 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1557(199912)8:7<535::AID-PDS456>3.0.CO;2-D · DOI
Cited by
Safety monitoring in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)
Shimabukuro, T. T., Nguyen, M., Martin, D., & DeStefano, F. (2015) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.07.035 · Cited by 608
Postlicensure Safety Surveillance for Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Recombinant Vaccine
Slade, B. A. (2009) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1201 · Cited by 470
Shrinkage observed-to-expected ratios for robust and transparent large-scale pattern discovery
Norén, G. N., Hopstadius, J., & Bate, A. (2013) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1177/0962280211403604 · Cited by 336
Moore, T. J., Glenmullen, J., & Mattison, D. R. (2014) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.5262 · Cited by 324
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Evans, S. J. W., Waller, P. C., & Davis, S.
- Venue
- Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-10
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 483-486
- ISSN
- 1053-8569 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1557
- OpenAlex
- W1988100739
- Cited by
- 1,802
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.71
- 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: Use of proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) for signal generation from spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/pds.677
- The paper
- Evans, S. J. W., Waller, P. C., & Davis, S. (2001). Use of proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) for signal generation from spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety. https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.677
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.
