Joep Scholl

Dr. Joep Scholl

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

12Years (2015-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
26 February 2018 in Drug Safety
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
CECorine Ekhart
Corine Ekhart
FHFlorence van Hunsel
Florence van Hunsel
JSJoep Scholl
Joep Scholl
SVSieta de Vries
Sieta de Vries
EPEugene P. Van Puijenbroek
Eugene P. Van Puijenbroek


12 October 2023 in Drug Safety
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
MGMoa Gustafsson
Moa Gustafsson
CMCristiano Matos
Cristiano Matos
João José JoaquimJoão José Joaquim
João José Joaquim
JSJoep Scholl
Joep Scholl
FHFlorence van Hunsel
Florence van Hunsel

7 April 2022 in Drug Safety
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
CVCarolina Valeiro
Carolina Valeiro
CMCristiano Matos
Cristiano Matos
JSJoep Scholl
Joep Scholl
FHFlorence van Hunsel
Florence van Hunsel

22 April 2015 in British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
JSJoep Scholl
Joep Scholl
RERike van Eekeren
Rike van Eekeren
EPEugene P. Van Puijenbroek
Eugene P. Van Puijenbroek

21 December 2017 in Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
JSJoep Scholl
Joep Scholl
FHFlorence van Hunsel
Florence van Hunsel
EHEelko Hak
Eelko Hak
EPEugene P. Van Puijenbroek
Eugene P. Van Puijenbroek
Purpose: The statistical screening of pharmacovigilance databases containing spontaneously reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is mainly based on disproportionality analysis. The aim of this study was to improve the efficiency of full database screening using a prediction model‐based approach.Methods: A logistic regression‐based prediction model containing 5 candidate predictors was developed and internally validated using the Summary of Product Characteristics as the gold standard for the outcome. All drug‐ADR associations, with the exception of those related to vaccines, with a minimum of 3 reports formed the training data for the model. Performance was based on the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results were compared with the current method of database screening based on the number of previously analyzed associations.Results: A total of 25 026 unique drug‐ADR associations formed the training data for the model. The final model contained all 5 candidate predictors (number of reports, disproportionality, reports from healthcare professionals, reports from marketing authorization holders, Naranjo score). The AUC for the full model was 0.740 (95% CI; 0.734–0.747). The internal validity was good based on the calibration curve and bootstrapping analysis (AUC after bootstrapping = 0.739). Compared with the old method, the AUC increased from 0.649 to 0.740, and the proportion of potential signals increased by approximately 50% (from 12.3% to 19.4%).Conclusions: A prediction model‐based approach can be a useful tool to create priority‐based listings for signal detection in databases consisting of spontaneous ADRs.