Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24170978›Full record

ArticleInterdisciplinary toxicology2013

Implementation and evaluation of adverse drug reaction monitoring system in a tertiary care teaching hospital in Mumbai, India.

Dindayal Patidar, Mithun S Rajput, Nilesh P Nirmal, Wenny Savitri

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Interdisciplinary toxicology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The evaluation of adverse drug reactions in Saudi Arabia: A retrospective observational study.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2022
    Article
  4. Review
  5. A Metabolomics Approach to Pharmacotherapy Personalization.Journal of personalized medicine · 2018
    Review
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Potential use of NOACs in developing countries: pros and cons.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2014
    Review
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Dindayal PatidarDepartment of Pharmacology, Indore Institute of Pharmacy, SGI, Pithampur Road, Rau, Indore-453 331, India.
Mithun S Rajput
Nilesh P Nirmal
Wenny Savitri
Prince of Songkla University · THIndian Institute of Management Indore · INIPS Academy · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adverse drug reactions (ADR) are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality, often identified only post-marketingly. Improvement in current ADR reporting, including utility of underused or innovative methods, is crucial to improve patient safety and public health. Hospital-based monitoring is one of the methods used to collect data about drug prescriptions and adverse events. The aims of this study were to identify the most frequent ADRs recognized by the attending physicians, study their nature, and to target these ADRs in order to take future preventive measures. A prospective study was conducted over a 7-month period in an internal medicine department using stimulated spontaneous reporting for identifying ADRs. Out of the 254 admissions, 32 ADRs in 37 patients (14.56%) were validated from the total of 36 suspected ADRs in 41 patients. Female predominance was noted over males in case of ADRs. Fifty percent of total ADRs occurred due to multiple drug therapy. Dermatological ADRs were found to be the most frequent (68.75%), followed by respiratory, central nervous system and gastrointestinal ADRs. The drugs most frequently involved were antibiotics, anti-tubercular agents, antigout agents, and NSAIDs. The most commonly reported reactions were itching and rashes. Out of the 32 reported ADRs, 50% of the reactions were probable, 46.87% of the reactions were possible and 3.12% of the reactions were definite. The severity assessment done by using the Hartwig and Seigel scale indicated that the majority of ADRs were 'Mild' followed by 'Moderate' and 'Severe' reactions, respectively. Out of all, 75% of ADRs were recovered. The most potent management of ADRs was found to be drug withdrawal. Our study indicated that hospital based monitoring was a good method to detect links between drug exposure and adverse drug reactions. Adequate training regarding pharmacology and optimization of drug therapy might be helpful to reduce ADR morbidity and mortality.

Indexed as

adverse drug reactionhospital based monitoringpharmacovigilancequestionnaire survey

Identifiers

PMID24170978
PMCPMC3795320
OpenAlexW2101164976

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.