1,721,003 research outputs found
The reporting of disproportionality analysis in pharmacovigilance: spotlight on the READUS-PV guideline
Full text linkDisproportionality analyses are the most-commonly used study design used in the post-marketing phase to detect suspected adverse drug reactions in individual case safety reports. Recent years have witnessed an exponential increase in published articles on disproportionality analyses, thanks to publicly accessible databases. Unfortunately, this trend was accompanied by concerns on lack of transparency and misinterpretation of results, both generating unjustified alarm and diluting true signals into overwhelming noise. The READUS-PV guideline for reporting disproportionality analysis was developed to tackle this emerging issue. In this perspective article, we describe the rationale behind the development of the READUS-PV guideline, the first collaborative initiative to harmonize the reporting of disproportionality analyses. The adoption of the checklists will assist researchers, regulators, and reviewers in the reporting, assessment, and publication of disproportionality analyses. Acknowledging the challenges ahead of effective implementation, we advocate for a global endorsement by Pharmacology Journals. A wide dissemination of the READUS-PV guideline is crucial to foster transparency and reproducibility of pharmacovigilance research, supporting an effective exploitation of disproportionality analysis among other irreplaceable post-marketing research tools to ensure drug safety
The evolving role of disproportionality analysis in pharmacovigilance
No full textIntroduction: From 2009 to 2015, the IMI PROTECT conducted rigorous studies addressing questions about optimal implementation and significance of disproportionality analyses, leading to the development of Good Signal Detection Practices. The ensuing period witnessed the independent exploration of research paths proposed by IMI PROTECT, accumulating valuable experience and insights that have yet to be seamlessly integrated. Areas covered: This state-of-the-art review integrates IMI PROTECT recommendations with recent acquisitions and evolving challenges. It deals with defining the object of study, disproportionality methods, subgrouping, masking, drug-drug interaction, duplication, expectedness, the debated use of disproportionality results as risk measures, integration with other types of data. Expert opinion: Despite the ongoing skepticism regarding the usefulness of disproportionality analyses and individual case safety reports, their ability to timely detect safety signals regarding rare and unpredictable adverse reactions remains unparalleled. Moreover, recent exploration into their potential for characterizing safety signals revealed valuable insights concerning potential risk factors and the patient’s perspective. To fully realize their potential beyond hypothesis generation and achieve a comprehensive evidence synthesis with other kinds of data and studies, each with their unique limitations and contributions, we need to investigate methods for more transparently communicating disproportionality results and mapping and addressing pharmacovigilance biases
Direct Oral Anticoagulants and Interstitial Lung Disease: Emerging Clues from Pharmacovigilance
No full textNot availabl
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Full text linkWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
Modified-Chronic Disease Score (M-CDS): Predicting the individual risk of death using drug prescriptions
Full text linkBackground Estimating the morbidity of a population is strategic for health systems to improve healthcare. In recent years administrative databases have been increasingly used to predict health outcomes. In 1992, Von Korff proposed a Chronic Disease Score (CDS) to predict 1-year mortality by only using drug prescription data. Because pharmacotherapy underwent many changes over the last 3 decades, the original version of the CDS has limitations. The aim of this paper is to report on the development of the modified version of the CDS. Methods The modified CDS (M-CDS) was developed using 33 variables (from drug prescriptions within two-year before 01/01/2018) to predict one-year mortality in Bologna residents aged ≥50 years. The population was split into training and testing sets for internal validation. Score weights were estimated in the training set using Cox regression model with LASSO procedure for variables selection. The external validation was carried out on the Imola population. The predictive ability of M-CDS was assessed using ROC analysis and compared with that of the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), that is based on hospital data only, and of the Multisource Comorbidity Score (MCS), which uses hospital and pharmaceutical data. Results The predictive ability of M-CDS was similar in the training and testing sets (AUC 95% CI: Training [0.760-0.770] vs. testing [0.750-0.772]) and in the external population (Imola AUC 95% CI [0.756-0.781]). M-CDS was significantly better than CCI (M-CDS AUC = 0.761, 95% CI [0.750-0.772] vs. CCI-AUC = 0.696, 95% CI [0.681-0.711]). No significant difference was found between M-CDS and MCS (MCS AUC = 0.762, 95% CI [0.749-0.775]). Conclusions M-CDS, using only drug prescriptions, has a better performance than the CCI score in predicting 1-year mortality, and is not inferior to the multisource comorbidity score. M-CDS can be used for population risk stratification, for risk-adjustment in association studies and to predict the individual risk of death
- …
