ArticleTherapeutic advances in drug safety2018
Crowdsourcing sugammadex adverse event rates using an in-app survey: feasibility assessment from an observational study.
Article in Therapeutic advances in drug safety, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of neuromuscular blockade recovery co-administered with neostigmine and different doses of calcium gluconate: a randomized control trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2021Trial
- Could Artificial Intelligence Prevent Intraoperative Anaphylaxis? Reference Review and Proof of Concept.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Review
- Mobile Applications in Clinical and Perioperative Care for Anesthesia: Narrative Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Review
- Approach to Perioperative Anaphylaxis in 2020: Updates in Diagnosis and Management.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2021Review
- Regional anesthesia educational material utilization varies by World Bank income category: A mobile health application data study.PloS one · 2021Article
- Impact of COVID-19 response on global surgical volumes: an ongoing observational study.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2020Observational
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMobile applications (apps) have become a ubiquitous source of clinical decision support. We sought to ascertain the feasibility of using an app platform to obtain a crowdsourced measure of adverse drug reaction reporting rates associated with sugammadex administration and compare it with traditionally-derived estimates.
methodsUsing the widely-distributed anesthesia calculator app, 'Anesthesiologist', we surveyed anesthesia providers regarding their experience with adverse drug reactions associated with sugammadex administration.
resultsData were analyzed from 2770 participants in 119 countries responding between March 2016 and May 2017, who were estimated to have administered between 1.6-2.9 million doses (588-1040 administrations per participant). A low and high-end reporting rate of adverse events was estimated based on respondents' reported frequency and duration of sugammadex use. The estimated reporting rate of anaphylaxis due to sugammadex was 0.0055-0.098%, similar in range to previously published estimates.
conclusionsUse of an in-app survey facilitated a global assessment of anesthesia providers and could have useful applications in monitoring adverse events and estimating their rates. Further work is needed to validate this approach for other medications and clinical domains.
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.