Observational studyClinical drug investigation2018
Agreement Among Different Scales for Causality Assessment in Drug-Induced Liver Injury.
Observational study in Clinical drug investigation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Burden and Risk of Depression in Patients Receiving Semaglutide: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical obesity · 2026Pooled it
- Sports nutrition supplements and adverse events - a meta-epidemiological study of case reports specifically addressing causality assessment.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Pooled it
- Assessment of Knowledge, Attitude and Practice of Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Among Healthcare Professionals working in Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Healthcare Facilities in Ekiti State, South-West Nigeria.Hospital pharmacy · 2021Article
- Incidence, preventability, and causality of adverse drug reactions at a university hospital emergency department.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2021Article
- Article
- Worldwide Use of RUCAM for Causality Assessment in 81,856 Idiosyncratic DILI and 14,029 HILI Cases Published 1993-Mid 2020: A Comprehensive Analysis.Medicines (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Idiosyncratic DILI: Analysis of 46,266 Cases Assessed for Causality by RUCAM and Published From 2014 to Early 2019.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2019Review
- Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method for Drug-Induced Liver Injury: Present and Future.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2019Review
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
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveThe causality assessment of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) remains a challenge and eagerly awaits the development of reliable hepatotoxicity biomarkers. None of the different available algorithms used for the causality assessment of DILI has been universally accepted as the gold standard. This study was conducted to examine the agreement among different causality assessment scales in reporting DILI.
methodsThe World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Center (WHO-UMC), Naranjo, Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM), Maria & Victorino (M & V) and Digestive Disease Week-Japan (DDW-J) assessment scales were used to compare the causalities in all the reported cases of DILI in our adverse drug reaction (ADR) monitoring centre from January 2014 to June 2017. The probability of the causality assessment was classified as 'definite', 'probable', 'possible' and 'unlikely'. The agreement obtained among the causality assessments was analysed using the weighted kappa (κ
resultsA total of 33 cases of DILI were included in our analyses. Anti-tubercular therapy (ATT) and methotrexate were the drugs that most commonly caused DILI. The overall agreement among the different scales was poor. The best agreement was found between RUCAM and DDW-J scales (κ
conclusionThere were discrepancies among the different causality scales in assessing DILI. This might be due to the different definitions of causality criteria and subjective variability during assessment. A personalised assessment scale incorporating the latest information on specific risk factors and evidence-based criteria for DILI is warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29185238What 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.