↓ Skip to main content

Feasibility of Prioritizing Drug–Drug-Event Associations Found in Electronic Health Records

Overview of attention for article published in Drug Safety, October 2015
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 (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
Title
Feasibility of Prioritizing Drug–Drug-Event Associations Found in Electronic Health Records
Published in
Drug Safety, October 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40264-015-0352-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juan M. Banda, Alison Callahan, Rainer Winnenburg, Howard R. Strasberg, Aurel Cami, Ben Y. Reis, Santiago Vilar, George Hripcsak, Michel Dumontier, Nigam Haresh Shah

Abstract

Several studies have demonstrated the ability to detect adverse events potentially related to multiple drug exposure via data mining. However, the number of putative associations produced by such computational approaches is typically large, making experimental validation difficult. We theorized that those potential associations for which there is evidence from multiple complementary sources are more likely to be true, and explored this idea using a published database of drug-drug-adverse event associations derived from electronic health records (EHRs). We prioritized drug-drug-event associations derived from EHRs using four sources of information: (1) public databases, (2) sources of spontaneous reports, (3) literature, and (4) non-EHR drug-drug interaction (DDI) prediction methods. After pre-filtering the associations by removing those found in public databases, we devised a ranking for associations based on the support from the remaining sources, and evaluated the results of this rank-based prioritization. We collected information for 5983 putative EHR-derived drug-drug-event associations involving 345 drugs and ten adverse events from four data sources and four prediction methods. Only seven drug-drug-event associations (<0.5 %) had support from the majority of evidence sources, and about one third (1777) had support from at least one of the evidence sources. Our proof-of-concept method for scoring putative drug-drug-event associations from EHRs offers a systematic and reproducible way of prioritizing associations for further study. Our findings also quantify the agreement (or lack thereof) among complementary sources of evidence for drug-drug-event associations and highlight the challenges of developing a robust approach for prioritizing signals of these associations.

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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
Unknown 76 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 25%
Student > Master 12 16%
Researcher 11 14%
Other 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 13 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 21 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 21%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 19 25%
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 17 August 2017.
All research outputs
#2,570,562
of 25,390,970 outputs
Outputs from Drug Safety
#269
of 1,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,712
of 289,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Safety
#4
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,390,970 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 1,849 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 done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 289,592 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.