↓ Skip to main content

Specialist Cohort Event Monitoring Studies: A New Study Method for Risk Management in Pharmacovigilance

Overview of attention for article published in Drug Safety, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
Title
Specialist Cohort Event Monitoring Studies: A New Study Method for Risk Management in Pharmacovigilance
Published in
Drug Safety, January 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40264-014-0260-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Deborah Layton, Saad A. W. Shakir

Abstract

The evolving regulatory landscape has heightened the need for innovative, proactive, efficient and more meaningful solutions for 'real-world' post-authorization safety studies (PASS) that not only align with risk management objectives to gather additional safety monitoring information or assess a pattern of drug utilization, but also satisfy key regulatory requirements for marketing authorization holder risk management planning and execution needs. There is a need for data capture across the primary care and secondary care interface, or for exploring use of new medicines in secondary care to support conducting PASS. To fulfil this need, event monitoring has evolved. The Specialist Cohort Event Monitoring (SCEM) study is a new application that enables a cohort of patients prescribed a medicine in the hospital and secondary care settings to be monitored. The method also permits the inclusion of a comparator cohort of patients receiving standard care, or another counterfactual comparator group, to be monitored concurrently, depending on the study question. The approach has been developed in parallel with the new legislative requirement for pharmaceutical companies to undertake a risk management plan as part of post-authorization safety monitoring. SCEM studies recognize that the study population comprises those patients who may have treatment initiated under the care of specialist health care professionals and who are more complex in terms of underlying disease, co-morbidities and concomitant medications than the general disease population treated in primary care. The aims of this paper are to discuss the SCEM new-user study design, rationale and features that aim to address possible bias (such as selection bias) and current applications.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Nigeria 1 1%
Unknown 72 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 28%
Researcher 11 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Other 4 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 19 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 16 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Psychology 3 4%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 23 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 January 2015.
All research outputs
#15,315,142
of 22,778,347 outputs
Outputs from Drug Safety
#1,399
of 1,696 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,663
of 352,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Safety
#16
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,778,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,696 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,370 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.