Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 497

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Utilizing social media data for pharmacovigilance: A review

Open access
Sarker, Abeed, Ginn, Rachel, Nikfarjam, Azadeh, O’Connor, Karen, Smith, Karen, Jayaraman, Swetha, Upadhaya, Tejaswi, Gonzalez, Graciela·2015·Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Automatic monitoring of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs), defined as adverse patient outcomes caused by medications, is a challenging research problem that is currently receiving significant attention from the medical informatics community. In recent years, user-posted data on social media, primarily due to its sheer volume, has become a useful resource for ADR monitoring. Research using social media data has progressed using various data sources and techniques, making it difficult to compare distinct systems and their performances. In this paper, we perform a methodical review to characterize the different approaches to ADR detection/extraction from social media, and their applicability to pharmacovigilance. In addition, we present a potential systematic pathway to ADR monitoring from social media. METHODS: We identified studies describing approaches for ADR detection from social media from the Medline, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science databases, and the Google Scholar search engine. Studies that met our inclusion criteria were those that attempted to extract ADR information posted by users on any publicly available social media platform. We categorized the studies according to different characteristics such as primary ADR detection approach, size of corpus, data source(s), availability, and evaluation criteria. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies met our inclusion criteria, with fifteen (68%) published within the last two years. However, publicly available annotated data is still scarce, and we found only six studies that made the annotations used publicly available, making system performance comparisons difficult. In terms of algorithms, supervised classification techniques to detect posts containing ADR mentions, and lexicon-based approaches for extraction of ADR mentions from texts have been the most popular. CONCLUSION: Our review suggests that interest in the utilization of the vast amounts of available social media data for ADR monitoring is increasing. In terms of sources, both health-related and general social media data have been used for ADR detection-while health-related sources tend to contain higher proportions of relevant data, the volume of data from general social media websites is significantly higher. There is still very limited amount of annotated data publicly available , and, as indicated by the promising results obtained by recent supervised learning approaches, there is a strong need to make such data available to the research community.

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 · 10.1016/j.jbi.2015.02.004

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.

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

Cited by

See all 497

Metadata

Authors
Sarker, A., Ginn, R., Nikfarjam, A., O’Connor, K., Smith, K., Jayaraman, S., Upadhaya, T., & Gonzalez, G.
Venue
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-04
Volume
54
Pages
202-212
ISSN
1532-0464 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2102742655
Cited by
497
References
0
FWCI
102.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Utilizing social media data for pharmacovigilance: A review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jbi.2015.02.004
The paper
Sarker, A., Ginn, R., Nikfarjam, A., O’Connor, K., Smith, K., Jayaraman, S., Upadhaya, T., & Gonzalez, G. (2015). Utilizing social media data for pharmacovigilance: A review. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2015.02.004

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.