ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2013
Evaluation of adverse drug reactions in medical intensive care units.
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 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mortality among patients due to adverse drug reactions that occur following hospitalisation: a meta-analysis.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019Pooled it
- A clinical trial comparing physician prompting with an unprompted automated electronic checklist to reduce empirical antibiotic utilization.Critical care medicine · 2013Trial
- Supratherapeutic drug concentration triggers: A novel data-driven approach to assess their value for medication safety surveillance in intensive care.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Adverse Drug Reactions in an Intensive Care Unit of a Secondary Care Lithuanian Hospital: A Prospective Observational Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A comprehensive intervention for adverse drug reactions identification and reporting in a Pediatric Emergency Department.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2016Article
- Evaluation of an automated surveillance system using trigger alerts to prevent adverse drug events in the intensive care unit and general ward.Drug safety · 2015Article
- Differences between Drug-Induced and Contrast Media-Induced Adverse Reactions Based on Spontaneously Reported Adverse Drug Reactions.PloS one · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePatterns of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in the medical intensive care unit (MICU) were analysed, and signals for detecting ADRs were developed from the analysis.
methodA retrospective study was conducted in MICU wards at a tertiary care teaching hospital in Seoul, Korea. The areas included one general MICU and one cancer centre MICU. Two pharmacists evaluated ADRs in terms of length of stay, causality, severity, preventability, types, related organs, and incidence. Differences in ADR perception rates between physicians and pharmacists were also evaluated. ADR cases detected through the evaluation were reviewed to develop specific alerting signals for ICU ADRs.
resultsThe study group included 346 patients admitted to the ICU over 4 months. The overall incidence of ADRs was 32%. ICU length of stay is closely related to ADRs (p = 0.014). Most ADR cases were mild, temporary, and harmful to the patient. Twenty percent of ADRs were preventable, and 74% were type A. Of the ADRs, 70% were noted by physicians; 80% required intervention. The most commonly implicated drug was amphotericin B, and the clinical presentation was a haematologic reaction. Data on the time required for pharmacists to identify ADRs indicated that they were not slower than physicians. Six signals for early detection of the ADRs were developed.
conclusionsThe overall ADR incidence in the MICU was about one-third, and the length of stay of the ADR group was longer than that of those without this experience. Automated signal generation was developed. It seemed to be a valuable tool for faster and more efficient patient management, and possibly prevention of ADRs. A future study should scientifically evaluate the clinical relevance of this tool.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22673928What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.