The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Detection algorithms and attentive points of safety signal using spontaneous reporting systems as a clinical data source
Abstract
Continuous evaluation of drug safety is needed following approval to determine adverse events (AEs) in patient populations with diverse backgrounds. Spontaneous reporting systems are an important source of information for the detection of AEs not identified in clinical trials and for safety assessments that reflect the real-world use of drugs in specific populations and clinical settings. The use of spontaneous reporting systems is expected to detect drug-related AEs early after the launch of a new drug. Spontaneous reporting systems do not contain data on the total number of patients that use a drug; therefore, signal detection by disproportionality analysis, focusing on differences in the ratio of AE reports, is frequently used. In recent years, new analyses have been devised, including signal detection methods focused on the difference in the time to onset of an AE, methods that consider the patient background and those that identify drug–drug interactions. However, unlike commonly used statistics, the results of these analyses are open to misinterpretation if the method and the characteristics of the spontaneous reporting system cannot be evaluated properly. Therefore, this review describes signal detection using data mining, considering traditional methods and the latest knowledge, and their limitations.
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
Saito, T., & Rehmsmeier, M. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118432 · Cited by 5,309
Effect of Rosiglitazone on the Risk of Myocardial Infarction and Death from Cardiovascular Causes
Nissen, S. E., & Wolski, K. (2007) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa072761 · Cited by 4,675
Dynamic itemset counting and implication rules for market basket data
Brin, S., Motwani, R., Ullman, J. D., & Tsur, S. (1997) · Proceedings of the 1997 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data - SIGMOD '97 · doi:10.1145/253260.253325 · Cited by 1,951
Evans, S. J. W., Waller, P. C., & Davis, S. (2001) · Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety · doi:10.1002/pds.677 · Cited by 1,802
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
van Puijenbroek, E. P., Bate, A., Leufkens, H. G. M., Lindquist, M., Orre, R., & Egberts, A. C. G. (2002) · Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety · doi:10.1002/pds.668 · Cited by 1,372
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
Quantitative signal detection using spontaneous ADR reporting
Bate, A., & Evans, S. J. W. (2009) · Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety · doi:10.1002/pds.1742 · Cited by 912
Dumouchel, W. (1999) · The American Statistician · doi:10.1080/00031305.1999.10474456 · Cited by 878
Szarfman, A., Machado, S. G., & O??Neill, R. T. (2002) · Drug Safety · doi:10.2165/00002018-200225060-00001 · Cited by 700
Metadata
- Authors
- Noguchi, Y., Tachi, T., & Teramachi, H.
- Venue
- Briefings in Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2021-08-27
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 6
- ISSN
- 1467-5463 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-4054
- OpenAlex
- W3193337461
- Cited by
- 285
- References
- 56
- FWCI
- 79.18
- 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: Detection algorithms and attentive points of safety signal using spontaneous reporting systems as a clinical data source. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/bib/bbab347
- The paper
- Noguchi, Y., Tachi, T., & Teramachi, H. (2021). Detection algorithms and attentive points of safety signal using spontaneous reporting systems as a clinical data source. Briefings in Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbab347
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.