Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23776774›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of applied & basic medical research2011

Cutaneous adverse drug reactions in a tertiary care teaching hospital: A North Indian perspective.

Ruchika Nandha, Anita Gupta, Arif Hashmi

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of applied & basic medical research, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Dermoscopic Aspects of Cutaneous Adverse Drug Reactions.Dermatology practical & conceptual · 2021
    Article
  7. IntravenousSAGE open medical case reports · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

3 authors.

Ruchika NandhaDepartment of Pharmacology, Dr HSJ Institute of Dental Sciences, Chandigarh, India.
Anita Gupta
Arif Hashmi

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCutaneous manifestations of adverse drug reactions are a common occurrence and need to be differentiated from other causes of similar manifestations. Active search is essential for identification of these as patients may tend to downplay the causal association between drug use and the subsequent cutaneous manifestation. PURPOSE: To study the incidence of Cutaneous Adverse Drug Reactions (CADRs) in a tertiary care teaching hospital in North India.

methodsA prospective, observational study was conducted over a period of 6 months; using self-reporting method for selection of cases. The CADRs were graded as definite, possible and probable.

resultsDuring the study period, 91 cases of CADRs were observed. Maximum incidence of CADRs was seen with antimicrobials (48.30%), followed by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (21.90%). Maculopapular rash was the most common cutaneous manifestation of ADRs (42.85%).

conclusionCADRs are a common occurrence and awareness about the same is essential for diagnosis and prevention.

Indexed as

Cutaneous adverse drug reactionsdrug rashdrug reactionpharmacovigilance

Identifiers

PMID23776774
PMCPMC3657944

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.