| Title |
Criteria Revision and Performance Comparison of Three Methods of Signal Detection Applied to the Spontaneous Reporting Database of a Pharmaceutical Manufacturer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drug Safety, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.2165/00002018-200730080-00008 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yasuyuki Matsushita, Yasufumi Kuroda, Shinpei Niwa, Satoshi Sonehara, Chikuma Hamada, Isao Yoshimura |
| Abstract |
Several statistical methods exist for detecting signals of potential adverse drug reactions in spontaneous reporting databases. However, these signal-detection methods were developed using regulatory databases, which contain a far larger number of adverse event reports than the databases maintained by individual pharmaceutical manufacturers. Furthermore, the composition and quality of the spontaneous reporting databases differ between regulatory agencies and pharmaceutical companies. Thus, the signal-detection criteria proposed for regulatory use are considered to be inappropriate for pharmaceutical industry use without modification. The objective of this study was to revise the criteria for signal detection to make them suitable for use by pharmaceutical manufacturers. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 3% |
| Finland | 1 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 26 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 21% |
| Researcher | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 59% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 10% |
| Mathematics | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 4 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 21 August 2014.
All research outputs
#5,446,994
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Drug Safety
#594
of 1,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,013
of 285,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Safety
#223
of 812 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,852 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 285,367 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 812 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.