ArticleJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2014
First Indian study evaluating role of biochemical investigations and diagnostic tools in detection of adverse drug reactions.
Article in Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Iatrogenesis: A review on nature, extent, and distribution of healthcare hazards.Journal of family medicine and primary careReview
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aim of studyTo evaluate the role of biochemical investigations (BI) and diagnostic tools (DT) in ADR detection. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn observational prospective cross-sectional study was done using suspected ADR data collection form.
resultsA total of 2381 ADR related events were recorded in two years. Total number/percentage of biochemical abnormalities (BA) related ADR detection rate was 14.57% and of DT was 1.091% in contrast to 84.33% recorded with clinical presentation. Maximum cases were inward patients (87.13%), 67.02% were recorded by active surveillance. ADR detection rate at one point & detection on follow up was 56.31% Vs 46.38%. ADR detection rate of ECG, endoscopy, X-ray were 0.57%, 0.22%, 0.22% and of CT scan, MRI, DEXA scan, USG and biopsy was 0.04% each. Maximum ADRs were severe/serious, latent and Type-A in nature. Anemia (4.6%), followed by liver dysfunction (2.8%), renal dysfunction, electrolyte imbalance, hyperglycemia (1.1% each), abnormal coagulation profile (1%), decrease platelet count (0.8%), hypoglycemia (0.7%) were the most common BAs. Anti retroviral drugs (ART), tirofiban and methotrexate accounted for anemia, ART and anti tubercular drugs for liver & renal dysfunction, insulin for hypoglycemia, tirofiban, paclitaxel, capecipabine and ifosfamide for thrombocytopenia, hematuria by enoxaparin & dyslipidemia with ART were common ADRs.
conclusionBI and DT can play very important role in ADR detection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.