ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2018
Development and validation of an algorithm to identify drug-induced anaphylaxis in the Beijing Pharmacovigilance Database.
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.
- Article
- Intelligent Telehealth in Pharmacovigilance: A Future Perspective.Drug safety · 2022Review
- Pharmacovigilance in China: development and challenges.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2018Review
- Overview of this issue: pharmacovigilance, what is new?International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Pharmacovigilance databases are utilized to identify serious adverse drug events (ADEs). In China, very few studies have evaluated the validity of using pharmacovigilance databases to identify drug-induced anaphylaxis (DIA). Objective We aimed to develop and validate an algorithm to identify DIA using the Beijing Pharmacovigilance Database (BPD). Setting ADEs from the BPD mainly spontaneously reported from 94 hospitals in Beijing, China. Method Using the diagnoses, we developed an algorithm to identify potential DIAs from the BPD between January 2004 and December 2014. A sample of 500 patients was randomly selected for chart abstraction. Two physician adjudicators assessed whether DIA occurred using the published clinical criteria as the gold standard. Main outcome measure Positive predictive values (PPVs) and 95% confidence intervals of the algorithm and algorithm criteria components were calculated. Results 500 patients (53.2% female; the mean age 48.2 years) with potential DIA were selected using the algorithm. 444 were adjudicated as having anaphylaxis by physicians. The PPV of the overall algorithm was 88.8% (95% CI 86.0-91.6%). PPV for the algorithm only using specific diagnoses of "anaphylactic shock", "anaphylactic reaction", and "anaphylactoid reaction [severe]" was 89.6% (95% CI 86.6-92.4%); this partial algorithm identified 387 (87.2%) DIAs. The diagnosis that identified the most DIAs (83.8%) was "anaphylactic shock", with a PPV of 91.6% (95% CI 88.9-94.3%). Conclusion The overall algorithm identified a greater number of DIAs than the algorithm that only used specific diagnoses; however, its PPV was slightly lower. We were able to identify DIAs with the algorithm we developed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29464448What 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.