Observational studyBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2016
More than skin deep. Ten year follow-up of delayed cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADR).
Observational study in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating a Pharmacovigilance and Response Unit Team for a Better Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting and Management: Insights from a Prospective Cross-Sectional Study.Turkish journal of pharmaceutical sciences · 2025Article
- Adverse drug reaction management in hospital settings: review on practice variations, quality indicators and education focus.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Review
- Sustaining and spreading penicillin allergy delabelling: A narrative review of the challenges for service delivery and patient safety.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2020Review
- Medication Safety: Experiential Learning for Pharmacy Students and Staff in a Hospital Setting.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2016Article
- More than skin deep. Ten year follow-up of delayed cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADR).British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo determine the gaps in practice regarding appropriate ADR documentation and risk communication for patients diagnosed with severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADR).
methodsThis was a retrospective observational cohort study conducted using hospital coding and databases to identify inpatients diagnosed with CADR from January 2004 to August 2014. Hospital discharge summaries, ADR reports and pharmacy dispensing records were reviewed for ADR documentation. Patients still living in Australia and who did not opt out of being contacted were invited to be surveyed by telephone to determine their understanding of recommendations, re-exposure rates and long-term effects.
resultsOf 85 patients identified, median age was 59 (IQR 44-72) years and 47.1% were male. The most common diagnosis was TENS (49.4%). Ten patients (11.8%) died as inpatients. Of the 81 patients with a drug-related causality, 47 (58%) had appropriate documentation in all three required medical record platforms. Of the 56 eligible patients, 38 (67.9%) were surveyed; 13% had no information provided upon discharge and 26.3% patients had a mismatch in knowledge of implicated medications. No surveyed patient had a relapse of CADR, but 23.7% had a subsequent unrelated allergic reaction. Thirteen patients (34.2%) reported long-term effects.
conclusionsWe found gaps in the accuracy of ADR documentation and communication of risk at discharge, which indicated risks to patient safety. Electronic systems are being developed to improve documentation. Written information about CADR is being provided at discharge to improve patient understanding and knowledge.
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.