Observational studyEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2014
Adverse drug reactions in an emergency medical dispatching centre.
Observational study in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Retrospective identification of medication related adverse events in the emergency medical services through the analysis of a patient safety register.Scientific reports · 2022Observational
- Characterization of serious adverse drug reactions as cause of emergency department visit in children: a 5-years active pharmacovigilance study.BMC pharmacology & toxicology · 2018Article
- Factors Influencing the Frequency of Emergency Department Utilization by Individuals with Substance Use Disorders.The Psychiatric quarterly · 2016Article
- Seriousness, preventability, and burden impact of reported adverse drug reactions in Lombardy emergency departments: a retrospective 2-year characterization.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study is to assess the incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADR) leading to call an emergency medical dispatching centre.
methodsA prospective, observational, monocentric clinical study performed over a 2-year period (2011-2012) in a French prehospital emergency dispatching centre, the Service d'Aide Médicale Urgente (SAMU) covering 1,156,000 inhabitants. All adult patients (age≥18) who called for any cause were included. We created an electronic trigger 'iatrogenic event' implemented by the dispatching physician for each suspected case of ADR, then we completed the analyses of all the cases with a chief complain represented in more than 1% of the triggered cases. The primary outcome variable was the occurrence of any possible ADR. We then used the French method of causal relationship assessment.
resultsThe SAMU dispatched 339,915 calls during the study. In total, 1,467 ADRs were identified, representing 0.95% (CI 95% 0.90-1.00%) of cases. ADRs were as serious (SADR) in 51.06% (CI 95% 48.45-53.67%) of cases. The major ADR observed was haemorrhage, (42.81% (CI 95% 40.62-45.00%), n=628) followed by allergy, hypoglycaemia, vomiting, dizziness and drowsiness. The class of drugs most frequently involved was antithrombotic (43.69% (CI 95% 41.45-45.93%), n=641), followed by insulin (17.98% (CI 95%:17.06-18.90%), n=264).
conclusionsEmergency calls concerning ADRs were estimated as 9/1,000, and one out of two is serious.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24798891What 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.