ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2026
Adverse drug-event detection using the tree-based scan statistics (TreeScan) and comparison with common mining methods: new user, propensity score-matched cohorts.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTree-based scan statistics (TreeScan) combined with a new user propensity score (PS)-matched cohort design (PS-TreeScan) enhances post-marketing drug safety surveillance by adjusting for confounding biases. However, this method has not been compared with other signal mining techniques or used in post-marketing drug safety studies in China. We evaluate the effectiveness of the PS-TreeScan method in identifying statin-associated adverse events (AEs) by comparing it with three established signal detection methods using a Chinese real-world database.
methodsWe used data from the Yinzhou District Medical Database, encompassing patients with hypertension (2010–2016). Statin exposure and AEs were determined via outpatient/inpatient prescriptions and using ICD-10 codes in similar settings, respectively. A new user design with a 1:1 PS matching was implemented. Standard positive and negative signals were obtained from published systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and summary of product characteristics (SPC). PS-TreeScan was compared with three mining methods—incident rate ratio (crude cohort), Bayesian Confidence Propagation Neural Network (BCPNN), and Gamma Poisson Shrinker (GPS)—to identify statin-related AEs. Evaluation indices were calculated using the diagnostic test evaluation method, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values were compared to assess differences.
resultsPS-TreeScan identified 15 positive signals (P < 0.05), including 8 true positives. PS-TreeScan’s sensitivity was equivalent to those of BCPNN and GPS (62%) but higher than that of the crude cohort method. TreeScan AUC values were significantly higher at 77.7% (95% confidence interval: 63.7%–91.6%).
conclusionCompared to the original data, matched data effectively reduced false positives and improved the AUC for all methods. The PS-TreeScan method outperformed the traditional methods, thus it is able to supplement other mining methods for active adverse drug reaction monitoring.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41483171What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.