Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23285441›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2012

The profile of voluntary reported adverse drug reactions at a tertiary care hospital: a fifteen month prospective study.

Amit Dang, P N Bhandare

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Amit DangDirector, Geronimo Healthcare Solutions Private Limited.
P N Bhandare

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe present study was undertaken to provide the health professionals who were working at a tertiary care hospital, with a simple method to report Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) and to monitor, document and to evaluate them according to the set criteria. METHOD AND MATERIALS: This study was conducted over a period of 15 months from 1st Jan' 2008 to 31st March 2009 at Goa Medical College and Hospital (Goa, India). The evaluation of the data was done for various parameters, which included patient demographics and drug and reaction characteristics. An assessment was also done for the outcome, causality and the severity of the drug reactions.

resultsA total of 265 ADRs were reported. Among the drugs, the ß-lactam antibiotics were implicated the maximum number of times (54, 20.37%), followed by fluoroquinolones (35, 13.20%), antiretrovirals (33, 12.45%) and antiepileptics (31, 11.69%). Females showed more ADRs (142, 54%) than males (123, 46%). The skin was involved in about 57.73% (153) of the ADRs, while the CNS and the vascular system were involved in 8.67% (23) and 8.30% (22) of the ADRs. Most of the ADRs were categorized as "Type II" (203, 77%) against "Type I" (62, 23%) by Rawlins and Thompson's classification. The causality assessment was done by the Naranjo Algorithm and 62.26% (165) were seen to fall in the "probable category" as compared to 29.05% (77) in the "highly probable" one. Out of all the ADRs which were reported, 34.71% (148) were "severe", in accordance with the Modified Hartwig and Siegel's scale.

conclusionThe present work was a humble attempt to set up a well organized ADR reporting system at our government hospital. The systematic tracking and monitoring of ADRs can shed light on their extensiveness and their patterns of occurrence.

Indexed as

ADR drop boxAdverse Drug ReactionsPharmacovigilance

Identifiers

PMID23285441
PMCPMC3527781

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.