Effect of consumer reporting on signal detection: using disproportionality analysis

• HAMMOND IW, RICH DS: Consumers usurp spontaneous adverse event reporting in the United States. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. (2005) 14(Suppl. 2):S8-S9.
   Google Scholar
• EGBERTS TCG, SMULDERS M, DE KONING FHP, MEYBOOM RHB, LEUFKENS HGM: Can adverse drug reactions be detected earlier? A comparison of reports by patients and professionals. BMJ (1996) 313:530-531.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VAN GROOTHEEST K, DE GRAAF L, DE JONG-VAN DEN BERG L: Consumer adverse drug reaction reporting: a new step in pharmacovigilance? Drug Saf. (2003) 26(4):211-217.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MITCHELL AS, HENRY DA, SANSON-FISHER R, O'CONNELL DL: Patients as direct source of information on adverse drug reactions. BMJ (1988) 297(6653):891-893.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CLARK JA, KLINCEWICZ SL, STANG PE: In: Overview: Spontaneous Signalling. Mann RB, Andrews EB (Eds), John Wiley & Sons Ltd (2002):247-271.
   Google Scholar
• EVANS SJW, WALLER P, DAVIS S: Use of proportional reporting ratios (PRR) for signal generation from spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. (2001) 10:483-486.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'NEIL RT, SZARFMAN A: Some FDA perspectives on data mining for pediatric safety assessment. Curr. Ther. Res. Clin. Exp. (2001) 62(9):650-663.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SZARFMAN A, MACHADO SG, O'NEIL RT: Use of screening algorithms and computer systems to efficiently signal higher-than-expected combinations of drugs and events in the US FDA's spontaneous reports database. Drug Saf. (2002) 25(6):381-392.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LINDQUIST M, STAHL M, BATE A et al.: A retrospective evaluation of a data mining approach to aid finding new adverse drug reaction signals in the WHO international database. Drug Saf. (2000) 23(6):533-542.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EGBERTA AC, MEYBOOM RH, VAN PUIJENBROEK EP: Use of measures of disproportionality in pharmacovigilance: three Dutch examples. Drug Saf. (2002) 25(6):453-458.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FRAM DM, ALMENOFF JS, DUMOUCHEL W: Empirical Bayesian data mining for discovering patterns in post-marketing drug safety. In: Conference on Knowledge Discovery in Data. Proceedings of the Ninth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. (24 – 27 August 2003). ACM Press, Washington, DC, New York, USA (2003):359-368.
   Google Scholar
• ALMENOFF JS, DUMOUCHEL W, KINDMAN LA, YANG X, FRAM D: Disproportionality analysis using empirical Bayes data mining: a tool for the evaluation of drug interactions in the post-marketing setting. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. (2003) 12(6):517-521.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BATE A, LINDQUIST M, EDWARDS IR et al.: A data mining approach for signal detection and analysis. Drug Saf. (2002) 25(6):393-397.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ORRE R, LANSNER A, BATE A et al.: Bayesian neural networks with confidence estimations applied to data mining. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. (2000) 34(8):473-493.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BATE A, LINDQUIST M, ORRE R et al.: Data-mining analyses of pharmacovigilance signals in relation to relevant comparison drugs. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. (2002) 58(7):483-490.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VAN PUIJENBROEK EP, DIEMONT WL, VAN GROOTHEEST K: Application of quantitative signal detection in the dutch spontaneous reporting system for adverse drug reactions. Drug Saf. (2003) 26(5):293-301.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WILSON AM, THABANE L, HOLBROOK A: Application of data mining techniques in pharmacovigilance. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. (2003) 57(2):127-134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PURCELL P, BARTY S: Statistical techniques for signal generation: the Australian experience. Drug Saf. (2002) 25(6):415-421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CHEN R, GOLDBOURT U: Analysis of data associated with seemingly temporal clustering of a rare disease. Meth. Inform. Med. (1998) 37:26-31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HAUBEN M, REICH L, CHUNG S: Postmarketing surveillance of potential fatal reactions to oncology drugs: potential utility of two signal-detection algorithms. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. (2004) 60:747-750.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HAUBEN M: A brief primer on automated signal detection. Ann. Pharmacother. (2003) 37:1117-1123.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BREWSTER W, GIBBS T, LACROIX K et al.: Evolving paradigms in pharmacovigilance. Curr. Drug Saf. (2006) 1:127-134.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ALMENOFF J, TONNING JM, GOULD AL et al.: Perspectives on the use of data mining in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf. (2005) 28(1):981-1007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EDWARDS IR, BIRIELL C: Harmonisation in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf. (1994) 10:93-102.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GOLDMAN SA: Limitations and strengths of spontaneous reports data. Clin. Ther. (1998) 20(Suppl. C):C40-C44.
   Google Scholar
• ALVAREZ-REQUEJO A, CARVAJAL A, BEGAUD B et al.: Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: estimate based on a spontaneous reporting scheme and a sentinel system. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. (1998) 54:483-488.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RAWLINS MD: Pharmacovigilance: paradise lost, regained or postponed? The William Withering Lecture 1994. JR Coll. Physicians London (1995) 29:41-49.
   Google Scholar
• STROM BL, TUGWELL P: Pharmacoepidemiology: current status, prospects and problems. Ann. Intern. Med. (1990) 113:179-181.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FERNANDOPULLE RBM, WEERASURIYA K: What can consumer adverse drug reaction reporting add to existing healthcare professional-based system? Focus on the developing world. Drug Saf. (2003) 26(4):219-225.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HAMMOND IW, RICH D, LAKSH L, GIBBS TG: Comparison of the quality of spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports received from consumers versus healthcare professionals in 2003. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. (2006) 15(Suppl. 2):258; S121.
   Google Scholar
• HAMMOND IW, RICH DS, RUANE-DAO S et al.: Trends in the quality of spontaneous reports from 1990 to 2005. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. (2007) (In Press).
   Google Scholar
• VENULET J: The practicing physician as generator and user of adverse reaction data. Int. J. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. Toxicol. (1986) 24:385-389.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• VENULET J: Informativity of adverse drug reaction data in medical publications. Drug Info. J. (1985) 19:357-365.
   Google Scholar
• VENULET J: Incomplete information as a limiting factor in causality assessment ad adverse drug reactions and its practical consequences. Drug Inf. J. (1986) 20:423-431.
   Google Scholar

Websites

• http://www.fda.gov/cder/dpe/annrep95/index.htm Knapp DE, Robinson JI, Britt AL: Annual Adverse Drug Experience Report: (1995). FDA.
   Google Scholar
• http://www.fda.gov/cder/dpe/annrep96/index.htm Stepper H: Annual Adverse Drug Experience Report (1996). FDA.
   Google Scholar
• http://www.kilen.org/kilen/htm/crm.htm KILEN: Consumer Reports on Medicine – Consensus Document from International Conference on CRM.
   Google Scholar