Epidemiology, Comparative Methods of Detection, and Preventability of Adverse Drug Events

Al-Tajir, Ghada K; Kelly, William N.

doi:10.1345/aph.1e559

Cited by 36 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Twenty-eight articles remained 6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33 for evaluation, plus one more article retrieved by manual search 34 . Table 1 describes the studies, conducted in 13 countries from North America, Europe, South America, and Asia.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most of the studies were performed in one hospital (19/29) 7,8,12,13,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,25,26,27,28,31,32,33,34 . Six were multi-center 6,9,22,23,24,29 and Figure 1 Flowchart of systematic article search and selection on in-hospital adverse drug events.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Forty-eight percent of the studies (14/29) 6,8,9,14,18,19,22,23,24,25,28,29,30,31 used a retrospective approach, i.e., the presence of ADEs was analyzed after the patient was discharged; 48.3% of the studies (14/29) 7,11,12,13,15,16,17,20,21,26,27,32,33,34 used a prospective approach, whereby the ADEs were identified during the hospital stay; and one study 10 was cross-sectional, where ADEs were identified using a survey. Among the studies with a prospective approach, two used retrospective strategies to complement the evaluation, based on an analysis of hospital discharge forms 16,21 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only 41.4% (12/29) 6,7,10,11,12,20,21,26,27,28,29,33 provided information about age, and 24.1% (7/29) 6,7,10,20,26,27,33 on gender. As for the unit of analysis, 62.1% (18/29) 6,7,10,11,12,15,18,20,21,24,25,26,27,30,31,32,33,34 used the number of patients or patient charts, 48.3% (14/29) 6,8,9,12,14,16,17,20,22,23,25,28,29,33 the number of admissions or discharges, and 24.1% (7/29) 13,16,17,19,31,…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As for the technique used to identify ADEs, 55.2% of the studies (16/29) 6,7,8,9,11,13,15,16,17,19,21,24,25,26,27,33 used a combination of strategies to capture the events. The most widely used techniques included monitoring with screening criteria, review of patient charts, and use of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) associated with ADEs.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Adverse drug events in hospitals: a systematic review

Cano

Rozenfeld

2009

Cad. Saúde Pública

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Adverse drug events in hospitals: a systematic review

Cano

Rozenfeld

2009

Cad. Saúde Pública

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Investigation of Trigger Tools for Detecting Adverse Drug Reactions

Zolezzi

Forbes²,

Parsotam

et al. 2007

Pharmacy Practice and Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Despite the high morbidity and mortality associated with adverse drug events (ADEs) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) the ability to detect and report them systematically remains inefficient. Aim To investigate if the use of a modified ADE trigger tool could improve the identification of ADRs in hospitals. Method Retrospective review of patients' discharge summaries was conducted at a tertiary care facility over a 5‐week period. A modified ADE trigger tool (based on a previous model) was used to assess four high‐risk medicines (warfarin, heparin, morphine, benzodiazepines). ADEs identified were classified using both the Naranjo probability scale and the WHO ADR classification. Results Data from 528 patients were reviewed, of which 286 (54%) received at least 1 of the 4 high‐risk medicines. 45 patients (8.5%) were identified using the modified trigger tool as having had an ADE during their hospital stay. The modified ADE trigger tool improved the identification of ADRs compared with the spontaneous reporting system, regardless of the classification method used. Both the WHO and Naranjo classification scales yielded higher rates than the spontaneous reporting rate of 0.07% recorded by the New Zealand Centre for ADR Monitoring. Conclusion The modified ADE trigger tool appears to be a sensitive method for identifying ADRs. The results indicate that using the modified trigger tool yields significantly higher ADR reporting rates than the traditional spontaneous reporting system.

show abstract

Current awareness: Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety

2005

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to keep subscribers up‐to‐date with the latest developments in their field, John Wiley & Sons are providing a current awareness service in each issue of the journal. The bibliography contains newly published material in the field of pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety. Each bibliography is divided into 20 sections: 1 Books, Reviews & Symposia; 2 General; 3 Anti‐infective Agents; 4 Cardiovascular System Agents; 5 CNS Depressive Agents; 6 Non‐steroidal Anti‐inflammatory Agents; 7 CNS Agents; 8 Anti‐neoplastic Agents; 9 Haematological Agents; 10 Neuroregulator‐Blocking Agents; 11 Dermatological Agents; 12 Immunosuppressive Agents; 13 Autonomic Agents; 14 Respiratory System Agents; 15 Neuromuscular Agents; 16 Reproductive System Agents; 17 Gastrointestinal System Agents; 18 Anti‐inflammatory Agents ‐ Steroidal; 19 Teratogens/fetal exposure; 20 Others. Within each section, articles are listed in alphabetical order with respect to author. If, in the preceding period, no publications are located relevant to any one of these headings, that section will be omitted.

show abstract

Epidemiology, Comparative Methods of Detection, and Preventability of Adverse Drug Events

Abstract: Active surveillance for ADEs, with the aid of ADE trigger alerts, yields a significantly higher number of reports than spontaneous reporting. Such surveillance is useful in identifying areas where improvements in the safe use of drugs can be made.

Cited by 36 publications

References 32 publications

Adverse drug events in hospitals: a systematic review

Adverse drug events in hospitals: a systematic review

Investigation of Trigger Tools for Detecting Adverse Drug Reactions

Current awareness: Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About