IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v29y2009i2p247-256.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validation of an Automated Safety Surveillance System with Prospective, Randomized Trial Data

Author

Listed:
  • Michael E. Matheny

    (Division of General Medicine, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, michael.matheny@vanderbilt.edu, Decision Systems Group, Department of Radiology, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, MA)

  • David A. Morrow

    (TIMI Study Group, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, Division of Cardiology)

  • Lucila Ohno-Machado

    (Division of Health Sciences & Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, Decision Systems Group, Department of Radiology, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, MA)

  • Christopher P. Cannon

    (TIMI Study Group, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, Division of Cardiology, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, MA)

  • Marc S. Sabatine

    (TIMI Study Group, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, Division of Cardiology, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, MA)

  • Frederic S. Resnic

    (Division of Cardiology, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, Decision Systems Group, Department of Radiology, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, MA)

Abstract

Objective. We sought to validate 3 methods for automated safety monitoring by evaluating clinical trials with elevated adverse events. Methods. An automated outcomes surveillance system was used to retrospectively analyze data from 2 randomized, TIMI multicenter trials. Trial A was stopped early due to elevated 30-day mortality rates in the intervention arm. Trial B was not stopped early, but there was transient concern regarding 30-day intracranial hemorrhage rates. We compared statistical process control (SPC), logistic regression risk adjusted SPC (LR-SPC), and Bayesian updating statistic (BUS) methods with a standard prospective 2-arm event rate analysis. Each method compares observed event rates to alerting boundaries established with previously collected data. In this evaluation, the control arms approximated prior data, and the intervention arms approximated the observed data. Results. Trial A experienced elevated 30-day mortality rates beginning 7 months after the start of the trial and continuing until termination at month 14. Trial B did not experience elevated major bleeding rates. Combining the alerting performance of each method across both trials resulted in sensitivities and specificities of 100% and 85% for SPC, 0% and 100% for BUS, and 100% and 93% for both LR-SPC models, respectively. Conclusion. Both SPC and LR-SPC methods correctly identified the majority of months during which the cumulative event rates were elevated in trial A but were susceptible to false positive alerts in trial B. The BUS method did not result in any alerts in either trial and requires revision.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael E. Matheny & David A. Morrow & Lucila Ohno-Machado & Christopher P. Cannon & Marc S. Sabatine & Frederic S. Resnic, 2009. "Validation of an Automated Safety Surveillance System with Prospective, Randomized Trial Data," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(2), pages 247-256, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:29:y:2009:i:2:p:247-256
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08327110
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X08327110
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X08327110?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:29:y:2009:i:2:p:247-256. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.