↓ Skip to main content

A simple method for exploring adverse drug events in patients with different primary diseases using spontaneous reporting system

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
A simple method for exploring adverse drug events in patients with different primary diseases using spontaneous reporting system
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12859-018-2137-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yoshihiro Noguchi, Anri Ueno, Manami Otsubo, Hayato Katsuno, Ikuto Sugita, Yuta Kanematsu, Aki Yoshida, Hiroki Esaki, Tomoya Tachi, Hitomi Teramachi

Abstract

Patient background (e.g. age, sex, and primary disease) is an important factor to consider when monitoring adverse drug events (ADEs) for the purpose of pharmacovigilance. However, in disproportionality methods, when additional factors are considered, the number of combinations that have to be computed increases, and it becomes very difficult to explore the whole spontaneous reporting system (SRS). Since the signals need to be detected quickly in pharmacovigilance, a simple exploration method is required. Although association rule mining (AR) is commonly used for the analysis of large data, its application to pharmacovigilance is rare and there are almost no studies comparing AR with conventional signal detection methods. In this study, in order to establish a simple method to explore ADEs in patients with kidney or liver injury as a background disease, the AR and proportional reporting ratio (PRR) signal detection methods were compared. We used oral medicine SRS data from the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report database (JADER), and used AR as the proposed search method and PRR as the conventional method for comparison. "Rule count ≥ 3", "min lift value > 1", and "min conviction value > 1" were used as the AR detection criteria, and the PRR detection criteria were "Rule count ≥3", "PRR ≥ 2", and "χ2 ≥ 4". In patients with kidney injury, the AR method had a sensitivity of 99.58%, specificity of 94.99%, and Youden's index of 0.946, while in patients with liver injury, the sensitivity, specificity, and Youden's index were 99.57%, 94.87%, and 0.944, respectively. Additionally, the lift value and the strength of the signal were positively correlated. It was suggested that computation using AR might be simple with the detection power equivalent to that of the conventional signal detection method as PRR. In addition, AR can theoretically be applicable to SRS other than JADER. Therefore, complicated conditions (patient's background etc.) that must take factors other than the ADE into consideration can be easily explored by selecting the AR as the first screening for ADE exploration in pharmacovigilance using SRS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Student > Master 3 11%
Other 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 8 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 19%
Computer Science 4 15%
Unspecified 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 8 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 16 September 2021.
All research outputs
#2,337,873
of 23,344,526 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#679
of 7,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,958
of 330,500 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#10
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,344,526 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,387 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
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 330,500 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.