IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/drugsa/v39y2016i5d10.1007_s40264-016-0392-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evidence of Misclassification of Drug–Event Associations Classified as Gold Standard ‘Negative Controls’ by the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP)

Author

Listed:
  • Manfred Hauben

    (New York University School of Medicine)

  • Jeffrey K. Aronson

    (University of Oxford)

  • Robin E. Ferner

    (City Hospital
    University of Birmingham)

Abstract

Introduction Pharmacovigilance includes analysis of large databases of information on drugs and events using algorithms that detect disproportional frequencies of associations. In order to test such algorithms, attempts have been made to provide canonical reference lists of so-called ‘positive controls’ and ‘negative controls’. Reference sets with even modest levels of misclassification may result in under- or overstatement of the performance of algorithms. Aim We sought to determine the extent to which ‘negative control’ drug–event pairs in the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) database are misclassified Methods We searched the medical literature for evidence of associations between drugs and events listed by OMOP as negative controls. Results The criteria used in OMOP to classify positive and negative controls are asymmetric; drug–event associations published only as case series or case reports are classified as positive controls if they are cited in Drug-Induced Diseases by Tisdale and Miller, but as negative controls if case series or case reports exist but are not cited in Tisdale and Miller. Of 233 drug–event pairs classified in the 2013 version of OMOP as negative controls, 21 failed to meet pre-specified OMOP adjudication criteria; in another 19 cases we found case reports, case series, or observational evidence that the drug and event are associated. Overall, OMOP misclassified, or may have misclassified, 40 (17 %) of all ‘negative controls.’ Conclusions Results from studies of the performance of signal-detection algorithms based on the OMOP gold standard should be viewed with circumspection, because imperfect gold standards may lead to under/overstatement of absolute and relative signal detection algorithm performance. Improvements to OMOP would include omitting misclassified drug–event pairs, assigning more specific event labels, and using more extensive sources of information.

Suggested Citation

  • Manfred Hauben & Jeffrey K. Aronson & Robin E. Ferner, 2016. "Evidence of Misclassification of Drug–Event Associations Classified as Gold Standard ‘Negative Controls’ by the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP)," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 39(5), pages 421-432, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:39:y:2016:i:5:d:10.1007_s40264-016-0392-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s40264-016-0392-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40264-016-0392-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40264-016-0392-2?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:drugsa:v:39:y:2016:i:5:d:10.1007_s40264-016-0392-2. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40264 .

    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.