These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

120 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17604412)

  • 1. Signal detection: historical background.
    Egberts TC
    Drug Saf; 2007; 30(7):607-9. PubMed ID: 17604412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Use of measures of disproportionality in pharmacovigilance: three Dutch examples.
    Egberts AC; Meyboom RH; van Puijenbroek EP
    Drug Saf; 2002; 25(6):453-8. PubMed ID: 12071783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Evaluation of patient reporting of adverse drug reactions to the UK 'Yellow Card Scheme': literature review, descriptive and qualitative analyses, and questionnaire surveys.
    Avery AJ; Anderson C; Bond CM; Fortnum H; Gifford A; Hannaford PC; Hazell L; Krska J; Lee AJ; McLernon DJ; Murphy E; Shakir S; Watson MC
    Health Technol Assess; 2011 May; 15(20):1-234, iii-iv. PubMed ID: 21545758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Application of quantitative signal detection in the Dutch spontaneous reporting system for adverse drug reactions.
    van Puijenbroek E; Diemont W; van Grootheest K
    Drug Saf; 2003; 26(5):293-301. PubMed ID: 12650632
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Principles of signal detection in pharmacovigilance.
    Meyboom RH; Egberts AC; Edwards IR; Hekster YA; de Koning FH; Gribnau FW
    Drug Saf; 1997 Jun; 16(6):355-65. PubMed ID: 9241490
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Safety Concerns Reported by Patients Identified in a Collaborative Signal Detection Workshop using VigiBase: Results and Reflections from Lareb and Uppsala Monitoring Centre.
    Watson S; Chandler RE; Taavola H; Härmark L; Grundmark B; Zekarias A; Star K; van Hunsel F
    Drug Saf; 2018 Feb; 41(2):203-212. PubMed ID: 28933055
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Fluvastatin and hepatic reactions: a signal from spontaneous reporting in Italy.
    Conforti A; Magro L; Moretti U; Scotto S; Motola D; Salvo F; Ros B; Leone R
    Drug Saf; 2006; 29(12):1163-72. PubMed ID: 17147462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. ADR Reporting by the General Public: Lessons Learnt from the Dutch and Swedish Systems.
    Härmark L; van Hunsel F; Grundmark B
    Drug Saf; 2015 Apr; 38(4):337-47. PubMed ID: 25627832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The value of time-to-onset in statistical signal detection of adverse drug reactions: a comparison with disproportionality analysis in spontaneous reports from the Netherlands.
    Scholl JH; van Puijenbroek EP
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2016 Dec; 25(12):1361-1367. PubMed ID: 27686554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Signal detection in the pharmaceutical industry: integrating clinical and computational approaches.
    Hauben M
    Drug Saf; 2007; 30(7):627-30. PubMed ID: 17604418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Thoughts on signal detection in pharmacovigilance.
    Shakir SA
    Drug Saf; 2007; 30(7):603-6. PubMed ID: 17604411
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparative performance of two quantitative safety signalling methods: implications for use in a pharmacovigilance department.
    Almenoff JS; LaCroix KK; Yuen NA; Fram D; DuMouchel W
    Drug Saf; 2006; 29(10):875-87. PubMed ID: 16970511
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [Adverse drug reaction surveillance system in Korea].
    Choi NK; Park BJ
    J Prev Med Public Health; 2007 Jul; 40(4):278-84. PubMed ID: 17693730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Supervised signal detection for adverse drug reactions in medication dispensing data.
    Hoang T; Liu J; Roughead E; Pratt N; Li J
    Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2018 Jul; 161():25-38. PubMed ID: 29852965
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Innovations for the future of pharmacovigilance.
    Almenoff JS
    Drug Saf; 2007; 30(7):631-3. PubMed ID: 17604419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Applying quantitative methods for detecting new drug safety signals in pharmacovigilance national database.
    Shalviri G; Mohammad K; Majdzadeh R; Gholami K
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2007 Oct; 16(10):1136-40. PubMed ID: 17705214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Impact of stratification on adverse drug reaction surveillance.
    Hopstadius J; Norén GN; Bate A; Edwards IR
    Drug Saf; 2008; 31(11):1035-48. PubMed ID: 18840023
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [Dealing with adverse drug reactions in dentistry. Procedures on encountering adverse drug reactions and goal of the Swiss Pharmacovigilance system].
    Egger SS; Krähenbühl S; Schlienger RG
    Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed; 2005; 115(12):1209-18. PubMed ID: 16408825
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A Pharmacovigilance Signaling System Based on FDA Regulatory Action and Post-Marketing Adverse Event Reports.
    Hoffman KB; Dimbil M; Tatonetti NP; Kyle RF
    Drug Saf; 2016 Jun; 39(6):561-75. PubMed ID: 26946292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Use of triage strategies in the WHO signal-detection process.
    Lindquist M
    Drug Saf; 2007; 30(7):635-7. PubMed ID: 17604420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.