The REporting of A Disproportionality Analysis for DrUg Safety Signal Detection Using Individual Case Safety Reports in PharmacoVigilance (READUS-PV): Explanation and Elaboration

In pharmacovigilance, disproportionality analyses based on individual case safety reports are widely used to detect safety signals. Unfortunately, publishing disproportionality analyses lacks specific guidelines, often leading to incomplete and ambiguous reporting, and carries the risk of incorrect conclusions when data are not placed in the correct context. The REporting of A Disproportionality analysis for drUg Safety signal detection using individual case safety reports in PharmacoVigilance (READUS-PV) statement was developed to address this issue by promoting transparent and comprehensive reporting of disproportionality studies. While the statement paper explains in greater detail the procedure followed to develop these guidelines, with this explanation paper we present the 14 items retained for READUS-PV guidelines, together with an in-depth explanation of their rationale and bullet points to illustrate their practical implementation. Our primary objective is to foster the adoption of the READUS-PV guidelines among authors, editors, peer reviewers, and readers of disproportionality analyses. Enhancing transparency, completeness, and accuracy of reporting, as well as proper interpretation of their results, READUS-PV guidelines will ultimately facilitate evidence-based decision making in pharmacovigilance.

Citing Articles

Hemorrhage risk associated with triple antithrombotic therapy: a focused real-world pharmacovigilance disproportional analysis study.

Sridharan K, Sivaramakrishnan G BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2025; 25(1):180.

PMID: 40087557 DOI: 10.1186/s12872-025-04510-4.

Drug-associated gingival disorders: a retrospective pharmacovigilance assessment using disproportionality analysis.

Sridharan K, Sivaramakrishnan G BDJ Open. 2025; 11(1):24.

PMID: 40069171 PMC: 11897221. DOI: 10.1038/s41405-024-00291-8.

Zhu H, Pan L, Lui H, Zhang J J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2025; 27(3):e70029.

PMID: 40065662 PMC: 11894037. DOI: 10.1111/jch.70029.

Hypertension associated with serotonin reuptake inhibitors: A new analysis in the WHO pharmacovigilance database and examination of dose-dependency.

Chretien B, Rabiaza A, Kazuki N, Fedrizzi S, Sassier M, Dolladille C PLoS One. 2025; 20(3):e0317841.

PMID: 40053562 PMC: 11888134. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0317841.

Disproportionality Analysis and Causal Inference in Drug Safety.

Scosyrev E, Behr S, Jain D, Ponnuru A, Michel C Pharmaceut Med. 2025; .

PMID: 40032799 DOI: 10.1007/s40290-024-00549-4.

References

Gauffin O, Brand J, Vidlin S, Sartori D, Asikainen S, Catala M . Supporting Pharmacovigilance Signal Validation and Prioritization with Analyses of Routinely Collected Health Data: Lessons Learned from an EHDEN Network Study. Drug Saf. 2023; 46(12):1335-1352. PMC: 10684396. DOI: 10.1007/s40264-023-01353-w. View

Bailey C, Peddie D, Wickham M, Badke K, Small S, Doyle-Waters M . Adverse drug event reporting systems: a systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2016; 82(1):17-29. PMC: 4917803. DOI: 10.1111/bcp.12944. View

Evans S, Waller P, Davis S . Use of proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) for signal generation from spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2002; 10(6):483-6. DOI: 10.1002/pds.677. View

Reich C, Ryan P, Schuemie M . Alternative outcome definitions and their effect on the performance of methods for observational outcome studies. Drug Saf. 2013; 36 Suppl 1:S181-93. DOI: 10.1007/s40264-013-0111-1. View

Moola S, Munn Z, Sears K, Sfetcu R, Currie M, Lisy K . Conducting systematic reviews of association (etiology): The Joanna Briggs Institute's approach. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015; 13(3):163-9. DOI: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000064. View

Pearson R, Hauben M, Goldsmith D, Gould A, Madigan D, OHara D . Influence of the MedDRA hierarchy on pharmacovigilance data mining results. Int J Med Inform. 2009; 78(12):e97-e103. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2009.01.001. View

Noguchi Y, Tachi T, Teramachi H . Review of Statistical Methodologies for Detecting Drug-Drug Interactions Using Spontaneous Reporting Systems. Front Pharmacol. 2019; 10:1319. PMC: 6857477. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2019.01319. View

Shakir S, Layton D . Causal association in pharmacovigilance and pharmacoepidemiology: thoughts on the application of the Austin Bradford-Hill criteria. Drug Saf. 2002; 25(6):467-71. DOI: 10.2165/00002018-200225060-00012. View

Fukazawa C, Hinomura Y, Kaneko M, Narukawa M . Significance of data mining in routine signal detection: Analysis based on the safety signals identified by the FDA. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2018; 27(12):1402-1408. DOI: 10.1002/pds.4672. View

10.

Faillie J . Case-non-case studies: Principle, methods, bias and interpretation. Therapie. 2019; 74(2):225-232. DOI: 10.1016/j.therap.2019.01.006. View

11.

Candore G, Juhlin K, Manlik K, Thakrar B, Quarcoo N, Seabroke S . Comparison of statistical signal detection methods within and across spontaneous reporting databases. Drug Saf. 2015; 38(6):577-87. DOI: 10.1007/s40264-015-0289-5. View

12.

Nguyen T, Pariente A, Montastruc J, Lapeyre-Mestre M, Rousseau V, Rascol O . An original pharmacoepidemiological-pharmacodynamic method: application to antipsychotic-induced movement disorders. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2016; 83(3):612-622. PMC: 5306476. DOI: 10.1111/bcp.13145. View

13.

Fusaroli M, Raschi E, Gatti M, De Ponti F, Poluzzi E . Development of a Network-Based Signal Detection Tool: The COVID-19 Adversome in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. Front Pharmacol. 2021; 12:740707. PMC: 8694570. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2021.740707. View

14.

Sultana J, Hurtado I, Bejarano-Quisoboni D, Giorgianni F, Huybrechts K, Lu Z . Antipsychotic utilization patterns among patients with schizophrenic disorder: a cross-national analysis in four countries. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2019; 75(7):1005-1015. DOI: 10.1007/s00228-019-02654-9. View

15.

Harpaz R, DuMouchel W, LePendu P, Bauer-Mehren A, Ryan P, Shah N . Performance of pharmacovigilance signal-detection algorithms for the FDA adverse event reporting system. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2013; 93(6):539-46. PMC: 3857139. DOI: 10.1038/clpt.2013.24. View

16.

Gravel C, Douros A . Considerations on the use of different comparators in pharmacovigilance: A methodological review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2023; 89(9):2671-2676. DOI: 10.1111/bcp.15802. View

17.

Glasziou P, Altman D, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S . Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014; 383(9913):267-76. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62228-X. View

18.

Croteau D, Pinnow E, Wu E, Munoz M, Bulatao I, Dal Pan G . Sources of Evidence Triggering and Supporting Safety-Related Labeling Changes: A 10-Year Longitudinal Assessment of 22 New Molecular Entities Approved in 2008 by the US Food and Drug Administration. Drug Saf. 2022; 45(2):169-180. DOI: 10.1007/s40264-021-01142-3. View

19.

Naranjo C, Busto U, Sellers E, Sandor P, Ruiz I, Roberts E . A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1981; 30(2):239-45. DOI: 10.1038/clpt.1981.154. View

20.

Montastruc J, Sommet A, Bagheri H, Lapeyre-Mestre M . Benefits and strengths of the disproportionality analysis for identification of adverse drug reactions in a pharmacovigilance database. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2011; 72(6):905-8. PMC: 3244636. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2011.04037.x. View