ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2018
Development of a 'ready-to-use' tool that includes preventability, for the assessment of adverse drug events in oncology.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2018. 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.
- The application of Global Trigger Tool in monitoring antineoplastic adverse drug events: a retrospective study.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- [Update of triggers for detection of adverse drug events in hematologic patients].Cadernos de saude publica · 2023Article
- Association between cancer-specific adverse event triggers and mortality: A validation study.Cancer medicine · 2020Article
- Developing a cancer-specific trigger tool to identify treatment-related adverse events using administrative data.Cancer medicine · 2020Article
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
Abstract
Background Adverse drug events (ADEs) occur frequently in oncology and justify continuous assessment and monitoring. There are several methods for detecting them, but the trigger tool method seems the most appropriate. Although a generic tool exists, its use for ADEs in oncology has not been convincing. The development of a focused version is therefore necessary. Objective To provide an oncology-focused trigger tool that evaluates the prevalence, harm, and preventability in a standardised method for pragmatic use in ADE surveillance. Setting Hospitals with cancer care in France. Method The tool has been constructed in two steps: (1) constitution of an oncology-centred list of ADEs; 30 pharmacists/practitioners in cancer care from nine hospitals selected a list of ADEs using a method of agreement adapted from the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method; and (2) construction of three standardised dimensions for the characterisation of each ADE (including causality, severity, and preventability). Main outcome measure The main outcome measure was validation of the tool, including preventability criteria. Results The tool is composed of a final list of 15 ADEs. For each ADE, a 'reviewer form' has been designed and validated by the panel. It comprises (1) the trigger(s), (2) flowcharts to guide the reviewer, (3) criteria for grading harm, and (4) a standardised assessment of preventability with 6-14 closed sentences for each ADE in terms of therapeutic management and/or prevention of side-effects. Conclusion A complete 'ready-to-use' tool for ADE monitoring in oncology has been developed that allows the assessment of three standardised dimensions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29446003What 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.