Bio-Surveillance and Claims Databases

  • Morris F. Collen
Part of the Health Informatics book series (HI)


Computer-based surveillance systems develop a specialized form of database to monitor changes through time in a process involving individuals or population groups for their conformity to expected or desired results, to reflect trends, to signal alerts for the occurrence of specified adverse events, or to monitor the effects of intervention programs. A computer-based bio-surveillance system is one that has been developed with the objective of maintaining a vigil for specified potential health hazards, and has been programmed to collect large amounts of relevant data from many appropriate resources in order to be able to analyze the data for the specified health hazard conditions. The Food and Drug Agency (FDA) uses several large databases for the postmarketing surveillance of adverse drug events (ADEs). The Center for Disease Control (CDC) uses a variety of databases for the surveillance of potential epidemics of infectious diseases. Other federal agencies that use medical-related computer databases are the Medicare and Medicaid agencies that maintain very large claims databases of the payments for medical services to eligible patients.


Adverse Drug Event Adverse Event Reporting System Spontaneous Reporting System Potential ADEs Surveillance Database 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bates DW, Leape LL, Petrycki S. Incidence and preventability of adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8:289–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bates DW, O’Neil AC, Boyle D, et al. Potential identifiability and preventability of adverse events using information systems. JAMIA. 1994;1:404–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Berndt DJ, Hevner AR, Studnicki J. CATCH/IT: a data warehouse to support comprehensive assessment for tracking community health. Proc AMIA Symp. 1998;250–4.Google Scholar
  4. Blum RL. Modeling and encoding clinical causal relationships in a medical knowledge base. Proc SCAMC. 1983:837–41.Google Scholar
  5. Breslow L. Multiphasic screening examinations – an extension of mass screening technique. Am J Public Health. 1950;40:274–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Breslow L. Historical review of multiphasic screening. Prev Med. 1973;2:177–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brewer T, Colditz GA. Postmarketing surveillance and adverse drug reactions; current perspectives and future needs. JAMA. 1999;281:824–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brossette SE, Sprague AP, Jones WT, Moser SA. A data mining system for infection control surveillance. Methods Inf Med. 2000;39:303–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Canfield K, Ritondo M, Sponaugle R. A case study of the evolving architecture for the FDA generic drug application process. JAMIA. 1998;5:432–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Carson JL, Strom BL, Maislin G. Screening for unknown effects of newly marketed drugs, Chap 30. In: Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 1994. p. 431–47.Google Scholar
  11. Carson JL, Ray WA, Strom BL. Medicaid databases, Chap 19. In: Strom BL, Strom BL, editors. Pharmacoepidemiology. New York: Wiley; 2000. p. 307–24. ISBN 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cluff LE, Thornton GF, Seidl LG. Studies on the epidemiology of adverse drug reactions I. Methods of surveillance. JAMA. 1964;188:976–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cuddihy RV, Ring WS, Augustine NF. Modification of a management information system software package to process drug reaction data. Methods Inf Med. 1971;10:9–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. DuMouchel W. Bayesian data mining in large frequency tables, with an application to the FDA Spontaneous Reporting System. Am Stat. 1999;53:177–90.Google Scholar
  15. FDA: Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997. Public Law 105–15, 105th Congress.Google Scholar
  16. FDA: FDA Administration Amendments Act of 2007. Public Law 110–85, 110th Congress.Google Scholar
  17. Finney DJ. The design and logic of a monitor of drug use. J Chronic Dis. 1965;18:77–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Finney DJ. Reporting and interpreting adversities that follow drug administration. In: Ducrot H, Goldberg M, Hoigne R, Middleton P, editors. Computer aid to drug therapy and to drug monitoring. Proceedings of the IFIP Working Conference on Computer Aid to Drug Therapy and to Drug Monitoring. New York: North-Holland Pub Co; 1978. p. 109–14.Google Scholar
  19. Friedman GD. Screening criteria for drug monitoring; The Kaiser Permanente drug reaction monitoring system. J Chronic Dis. 1972;25:11–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Friedman GD. Monitoring of drug effects in outpatients: development of a program to detect carcinogenesis. In: Ducrot H, Goldberg M, Hoigne R, Middleton P, editors. Computer aid to drug therapy and to drug monitoring. Proc IFIP Working Conf. New York: North-Holland Pub Co; 1978. p. 55–62.Google Scholar
  21. Friedman GD. Computer data bases in epidemiological research. Proc AAMSI Symp. 1984:389–92.Google Scholar
  22. Friedman GD. Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program: Northern California and other regions, Chap 14. In: Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. 4th ed. New York: Wiley; 1994. p. 187–97.Google Scholar
  23. Friedman GD, Collen MF, Harris LE, et al. Experience in monitoring drug reactions in outpatients: the Kaiser Permanente drug monitoring system. JAMA. 1971;217:567–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Friedman GD, Habel LA, Boles M, McFarland BH. Kaiser Permanente Medical Care program: Division of Research, Northern California, and Center for Health Research, Northwest Division, Chap 16. In: Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley; 2000. p. 263–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Garfield SR. The delivery of medical care. Sci Am. 1970;222:15–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Glichlich RE, Dreyer NA, editors. Registries for evaluating patient outcomes: a user’s guide, AHRQ pub, vol. # 07-EHC001-1. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2007. p. 1–233.Google Scholar
  27. Grasela TH. Clinical pharmacy drug surveillance network, Chap 21. In: Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 1994. p. 289–300.Google Scholar
  28. Greene SB, Gunselman DL. The conversion of claims files to an episode data base. A tool for management and research. Inquiry. 1984;21:189–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Guess HA. Premarketing applications of pharmacoepidemiology, Chap 28. In: Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley; 2000. p. 450–62.Google Scholar
  30. Hand DJ. Data mining statistics and more. Am Stat. 1998;52:112–8.Google Scholar
  31. Helling M, Venulet J. Drug recording and classification by the WHO Research Centre for International Monitoring of Adverse Reactions Due to Drugs. Methods Inf Med. 1974;13:169–78.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Hennessey S, Strom BL, Lipton H, Soumerai SB. Drug utilization review, Chap 31. In: Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley; 2000. p. 505–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hierholzer WJ, Streed SA. Two years experience using an on-line infection management data system. Proc SCAMC. 1982:311–15.Google Scholar
  34. Jick H. Drug surveillance program. Med Sci. 1967;(Jul):41–6.Google Scholar
  35. Jick H. The discovery of drug-induced illness. N Engl J Med. 1977;296:481–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jick H. In-hospital monitoring of drug effects - past accomplishments and future needs. In: Ducrot H, Goldberg M, Hoigne R, et al., editors. Computer aid to drug therapy and to drug monitoring. New York: North-Holland Pub Co; 1978. p. 3–7.Google Scholar
  37. Karch FE, Lasagna L. Adverse drug reactions: a critical review. JAMA. 1976;234:1236–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jick H, Miettinen OS, Shapiro S, et al. Comprehensive drug surveillance. JAMA. 1970;213:1455–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kennedy DL, Goldman SA, Lillie RB. Spontaneous reporting in the United States, Chap 10. In: Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley; 2000. p. 151–74.Google Scholar
  40. Kerr S. IS: the best medicine for drug monitoring. Datamation. 1988;35:41–6. 35.Google Scholar
  41. Kodlin D, Standish J. A response time model for drug surveillance. Comput Biomed Res. 1970;3:620–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MD, editors. To err is human: building a safer health system. A report of the Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  43. Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA. 1998;279:1200–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. LaVenture M. Wisconsin epidemiology disease surveillance system; user control of data base management technology. Proc SCAMC. 1982:156.Google Scholar
  45. Leape LL, Brennan TA, Laird N, et al. The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:377–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lesko SM, Mitchell AA. The use of randomized controlled trials for pharmacoepidemiology studies, Chap 33. In: Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley; 2000. p. 539–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ludwig D, Heilbronn D. The design and testing of a new approach to computer-aided differential diagnosis. Methods Inf Med. 1983;22:156–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. MacKinnon G, Waller W. Using databases. Healthc Inform. 1993;10:34–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Marlin RL. Reliability factors in adverse drug reaction reporting. Methods Inf Med. 1981;20:157–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. May FE, Stewart RB, Cluff LE. Drug interactions and multiple drug administration. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1977;22:322–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Mesel E, Wirtschafter DD. Automating ambulatory medical records: a claims-based medical profile. Comput Biomed Res. 1976;9:89–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Michel DJ, Knodel LC. Comparison of three algorithms used to evaluate drug reactions. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1986;43:1709–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Miller RR. Drug surveillance utilizing epidemiologic methods: a report from the Boston collaborative drug surveillance program. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1973;30:584–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Morrell J, Podlone M, Cohen SN. Receptivity of physicians in a teaching hospital to a computerized drug interaction monitoring and reporting system. Med Care. 1977;15:68–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Naranjo CA, Busto U, Sellers EM, et al. A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1981;30:239–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ostroff SM, Kobayashi JM, Lewis JH. Infections with Escherichia coli O157:H7 in Washington State: the first year of statewide disease surveillance. JAMA. 189;262:355–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ostrowski CP, Hildebrand M. Manipulating integrated data for clinical analysis. Proc MEDINFO. 1983:925–7.Google Scholar
  58. Ouslander JG. Drug therapy in the elderly. Ann Intern Med. 1981;95:711–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Petrie LM, Bowdoin CD, McLoughlin CJ. Voluntary multiple health tests. JAMA. 1952;148:1022–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Porter J, Jick H. Drug-related deaths among medical inpatients. JAMA. 1977;237:879–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Prather JC, Lobach DF, Goodwin LK, et al. Medical data mining: knowledge discovery in a clinical data warehouse. Proc AMIA Symp. 1997:101–5.Google Scholar
  62. Reynolds T. A registry for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 1998;128:701–4.Google Scholar
  63. Rind DM, Davis R, Safran C. Designing studies of computer-based alerts and reminders. MD Comput. 1995;12:122–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Roach J, Lee S, Wilcke J, Ehrich M. An expert system for information on pharmacology and drug interactions. Comput Biol Med. 1985;15:11–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Royall BW, Venulet J. Methodology for international drug monitoring. Methods Inf Med. 1972;11:75–86.Google Scholar
  66. Ruskin A. Storage and retrieval of adverse reaction data (and the international monitoring program). Proc 8th IBM Medical Symp, Poughkeepsie: 1967;67–8.Google Scholar
  67. Samore M, Lichtenberg D, Saubermann L, et al. A clinical data repository enhances hospital infection control. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp. 1997:56–60.Google Scholar
  68. Shapiro S. Case-control surveillance, Chap 22. In: Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 1994. p. 301–22.Google Scholar
  69. Shapiro S, Slone D, Lewis GP, Jick H. Fatal drug reactions among medical inpatients. JAMA. 1971;216:467–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Simborg DW. Medication prescribing on a university medical service - the incidence of drug combinations with potential adverse interactions. Johns Hopkins Med J. 1976;139:23–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Slone D, Jick H, Borda I, et al. Drug surveillance using nurse monitors. Lancet. 1966;2:901–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Smith JW. A hospital adverse drug reaction reporting program. Hospitals, JAHA. 1966;40:90–6.Google Scholar
  73. Smith JW, Seidl LG, Cluff LE. Studies on the epidemiology of adverse drug reactions: V. Clinical factors influencing susceptibility. Ann Intern Med. 1966;65:629–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Strom BL, Carson JL, Halpern AC, et al. Using a claims database to investigate drug-induced Stevens-Johnson syndrome. Stat Med. 1991;10:565–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Strom BL, editor. Pharmocoepidemiology. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 1994.Google Scholar
  76. Strom BL. Pharmocoepidemiology. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley; 2000a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Strom BL. Other approaches to pharmacoepidemiology studies, Chap 24. In: Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley; 2000b. p. 387–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Strom BL, Melmon KL. The use of pharmacoepidemiology to study beneficial drug effects, Chap 34. In: Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley; 2000. p. 553–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Szarfman A, Machado SG, O’Niell RT. Use of screening algorithms and computer systems to efficiently signal higher-than-expected combinations of drugs and events in the U.S FDA’s Spontaneous Reports Database. Drug Saf. 2002;25:281–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Temple R. Meta-analysis and epidemiologic studies in drug development and postmarketing surveillance. JAMA. 1999;281:841–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Thacker SB, Choi K, Brachman PS. The surveillance of infectious diseases. JAMA. 1983;249:1181–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Thomas U. Computerized data banks in public administration. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/OECD Pub; 1971.Google Scholar
  83. Ury HK. A new test statistic for the Kodlin-Standish drug surveillance model. Comput Biomed Res. 1972;5:561–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Visconti JA, Smith MC. The role of hospital personnel in reporting adverse drug reactions. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1967;24:273–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Walker AM, Cody RJ, Greenblatt DJ, Jick H. Drug toxicity in patients receiving digoxin and quinidine. Am Heart J. 1983;105:1025–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wennberg JE, Roos N, Sola L, et al. Use of claims data systems to evaluate health care outcomes. JAMA. 1987;257:933–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Westlin WF, Cuddihy RV, Bursik RJ, et al. One method for the systematic evaluation of adverse drug experience data within a pharmaceutical firm. Methods Inf Med. 1977;16:240–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Windsor DA. Adverse-reactions literature: a bibliometric analysis. Methods Inf Med. 1977;16:52–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Wise WW. Microcomputer infection surveillance system. Proc IEEE. 1984:215–20.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Morris F. Collen
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of ResearchOaklandUSA

Personalised recommendations