Skip to main content
Log in

Stratification for Spontaneous Report Databases

  • Correspondence
  • Published:
Drug Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Table I
Fig. 1

References

  1. Evans SJ. Stratification for spontaneous report databases. Drug Saf 2008; 31(11): 1049–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hopstadius J, Norén GN, Bate A, et al. Impact of stratification on adverse drug reaction surveillance. Drug Saf 2008; 31(11): 1035–48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Woo EJ, Ball R, Burwen DR, et al. Effects of stratification on data mining in the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Drug Saf 2008; 31(8): 667–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jakobsson M. Vaccine pharmacovigilance in the WHO database [masters thesis]. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  5. DuMouchel W. Bayesian data mining in large frequency tables, with an application to the FDA spontaneous reporting system. Am Statistician 1999; 53(3): 177–90

    Google Scholar 

  6. Norén GN, Bate A, Orre R, et al. Extending the methods used to screen the WHO drug safety database towards analysis of complex associations and improved accuracy for rare events. Stat Med 2006; 25(21): 3740–57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gould AL. Practical pharmacovigilance analysis strategies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2003; 12(7): 559–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Szarfman A, Tonning JM, Doraiswamy PM. Pharmacovigilance in the 21st century: New systematic tools for an old problem. Pharmacotherapy 2004; 24(9): 1099–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Levine JG, Tonning JM, Szarfman A. Reply: the evaluation of data mining methods for the simultaneous and systematic detection of safety signals in large databases: lessons to be learned. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2006; 61(1): 105–13

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. DuMouchel W, Smith ET, Beasley R, et al. Association of asthma therapy and Churg-Strauss syndrome: an analysis of postmarketing surveillance data. Clin Ther 2004; 26(7): 1092–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hauben M, Reich L. Response to letter by Levine, et al. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2006; 61(1): 115–7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lilienfeld D, Nicholas S, Macneil D, et al. Violation of homogeneity: a methodologic issue in the use of data mining tools. Drug Saf 2003; 26(5): 363–4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bate A, Edwards I, Lindquist M, et al. Violation of homogeneity: a methodological issue in the use of data mining tools [letter]. Drug Saf 2003; 26(5): 363–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hopstadius J. Methods to control for confounding variables in screening for association in the WHO drug safety database [masters thesis]. Uppsala: Uppsala University, 2006

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this letter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hopstadius, J., Norén, G.N., Bate, A. et al. Stratification for Spontaneous Report Databases. Drug-Safety 31, 1145–1147 (2008). https://doi.org/10.2165/0002018-200831120-00010

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/0002018-200831120-00010

Keywords

Navigation