Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22673927›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2013

Recognition of adverse drug events in older hospitalized medical patients.

Joanna E Klopotowska, Peter C Wierenga, Susanne M Smorenburg, Clementine C M Stuijt, Lambertus Arisz, Paul F M Kuks, Marcel G W Dijkgraaf, Loraine Lie-A-Huen, Sophia E de Rooij, WINGS study group

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Jordanians' knowledge, attitude and practice regarding adverse drug reactions reporting.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Analytical and Omics-Based Advances in the Study of Drug-Induced Liver Injury.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2021
    Review
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Joanna E KlopotowskaDepartment of Hospital Pharmacy, Academic Medical Centre, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands. j.e.klopotowska@amc.nl
Peter C Wierenga
Susanne M Smorenburg
Clementine C M Stuijt
Lambertus Arisz
Paul F M Kuks
Marcel G W Dijkgraaf
Loraine Lie-A-Huen
Sophia E de Rooij
WINGS study group
Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess medical teams' ability to recognize adverse drug events (ADEs) in older inpatients.

methodsThe study cohort comprised 250 patients aged 65 years or older consecutively admitted to Internal Medicine wards of three hospitals in the Netherlands between April and November 2007. An independent expert team identified ADEs present upon admission or occurring during hospitalization by a structured retrospective patient chart review. For all ADEs identified, the expert team assessed causality, severity, preventability, and recognition by medical teams.

resultsThe medical teams did not recognize 19.9 % of all ADEs present upon admission {60.4 ADEs [95 % confidence interval (CI) 51.5-70.8] per 100 hospitalizations} and 20.3 % of all ADEs occurring during the hospital stay [47.2 ADEs (95 % CI 39.4-56.5) per 100 hospitalizations]. Unrecognized ADEs were significantly more often ADEs with possible causality (p=0.014, df=1), ADEs caused by medication errors (p<0.001, df=1), and ADEs not manifesting as new symptoms (p<0.001, df=1). The medical teams did not recognize 23.2 % of mild to moderately severe ADEs and 16.5 % of severe, life-threatening, or fatal ADEs. The recognition of ADEs varied with event type.

conclusionsThe recognition of ADEs by medical teams was substantial for those ADEs with evident causality and with clinically apparent and severe consequences. ADEs mimicking underlying pathologies with a lower severity went unrecognized much more often, as did those resulting only in abnormal laboratory values. Tools to improve the recognition of ADEs by medical teams should, therefore, focus on those ADEs that are more challenging to detect.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsFemaleHospitalizationHumansMaleNetherlandsPatient Care TeamPolypharmacy

Identifiers

PMID22673927
PMCPMC3536996
OpenAlexW2000167912

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.