Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29063137›Full record

ArticleNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2018

The adverse drug reaction reporting assignment for specialist oncology nurses: a preliminary evaluation of quality, relevance and educational value in a prospective cohort study.

Tim Schutte, Rike van Eekeren, Milan Richir, Jojanneke van Staveren, Eugène van Puijenbroek, Jelle Tichelaar, Michiel van Agtmael

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

7 authors.

Tim SchutteDepartment of Internal Medicine, Pharmacotherapy Section, VU University Medical Center, Room ZH4A50, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. t.schutte@vumc.nl.
Rike van EekerenDepartment of Pharmacy, Pharmacotherapy and Pharmaceutical Care, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Milan RichirDepartment of Internal Medicine, Pharmacotherapy Section, VU University Medical Center, Room ZH4A50, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jojanneke van StaverenAmstel Academy, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Eugène van PuijenbroekDepartment of Pharmacy, Pharmacotherapy and Pharmaceutical Care, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Jelle TichelaarDepartment of Internal Medicine, Pharmacotherapy Section, VU University Medical Center, Room ZH4A50, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Michiel van AgtmaelDepartment of Internal Medicine, Pharmacotherapy Section, VU University Medical Center, Room ZH4A50, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In a new prescribing qualification course for specialist oncology nurses, we thought that it is important to emphasize pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting. We aimed to develop and evaluate an ADR reporting assignment for specialist oncology nurses. The quality of report documentation was assessed with the "Clinical Documentation tool to assess Individual Case Safety Reports" (ClinDoc). The relevance of the reports was evaluated in terms of ADR seriousness, the listing for additional monitoring of the drug by European Medicines Agency (EMA), and lack of labelling information about the ADR. Nurses' opinions of the assignment were evaluated using an E-survey. Thirty-three ADRs were reported, 32 (97%) of which were well documented according to ClinDoc. Thirteen ADRs (39%) were "serious" according to CIOMS criteria. In five cases (15%), the suspect drugs were listed for additional monitoring by EMA and in seven cases (21%), the ADR was not mentioned in the Summary of Product Characteristics. Twenty-five (78.1%) of the 32 enrolled nurses completed the E-survey. Most were > 45 years of age (68%), female (92%) and had extensive clinical experience (6-33 years). All agreed or completely agreed that the reporting assignment was useful, that it fitted in daily practice and that it increased their attention for medication/patient safety. A large majority (84.0%) agreed the assignment changed how they dealt with ADRs. Specialist oncology nurses are capable of reporting ADRs, and they considered the assignment useful. The assignment yielded valuable, relevant, and well-documented ADR reports for pharmacovigilance practice.

Indexed as

Nurse's RoleAdultAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsCohort StudiesDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsEducation, NursingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOncology NursingPharmacovigilanceProspective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesADR reportingNursing educationOncology nursesPharmacotherapyPharmacovigilance

Identifiers

PMID29063137
PMCPMC5748417

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.