 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||||
Professor, Department of Administrative and Clinical Sciences, School of Pharmacy, Mercer University, 3001 Mercer University Dr., Atlanta, GA 30341-4155, FAX 678/547-6364, kelly_wn{at}mercer.edu
Reprints: William N Kelly PharmD
BACKGROUND: Case reports of adverse drug events (ADEs) are an important source of information.
OBJECTIVE: To determine what variables are reported in ADE case reports, how causality was assessed for each report, and what criteria are specified for publishing ADE case reports.
METHODS: A descriptive analysis of highly significant ADE case reports published in English over a 20-year period was performed. Main outcome measures included frequency distributions for the types of variables reported. The presence of causality assessment and the criteria for submitting an ADE report to practitioner journals were also examined.
RESULTS: A highly significant ADE was described in 1520 published case reports during the study period. Three patient variables were reported >90% of the time, while 12 others were reported <25% of the time. Only 1 drug variable was reported >90% of the time; 6 others were reported 14–74% of the time. Most of the relevant ADE variables were reported most often. Added information for drug interactions, medication errors, and allergic drug reactions were reported 61–99% of the time. Less than 1% of ADE reporters objectively assessed the probability of the ADE. All but one journal publishing the most ADE reports did not require such assessment.
CONCLUSIONS: Professional journals might consider stricter requirements for publishing ADE reports. As a minimum, requirements should include an objective assessment of ADE causality, with explicit recognition in the published text and abstract of the report.
Key Words: adverse drug events, quality of reports
Published Online, November 5, 2003. www.theannals.com, DOI 10.1345/aph.1D202
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  D. Isacson, L. Johansson, and K. Bingefors Nationwide Survey of Subjectively Reported Adverse Drug Reactions in Sweden Ann. Pharmacother., March 1, 2008; 42(3): 347 - 353. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F Ziemssen, S Grisanti, and K U Bartz-Schmidt The international intravitreal bevacizumab safety survey. Br. J. Ophthalmol., November 1, 2006; 90(11): 1440 - 1441. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Y. K. Loke, D. Price, S. Derry, and J. K Aronson Case reports of suspected adverse drug reactions--systematic literature survey of follow-up BMJ, February 11, 2006; 332(7537): 335 - 339. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 W. M. Lee and J. R. Senior Recognizing Drug-Induced Liver Injury: Current Problems, Possible Solutions Toxicol Pathol, January 1, 2005; 33(1): 155 - 164. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
