ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2018
Confidence and accuracy in identification of adverse drug reactions reported by outpatients.
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 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Severity and Outcome of Adverse Drug Reactions Reported and Assessed by Patients and Pharmacist at Secondary Care Setting.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
- Characteristics, preventability, management, and predictors of adverse drug reaction-related hospital admissions: a cross-sectional study in a Thai tertiary care hospital.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2026Article
- Evaluation of a self-screening tool and patient alert cards to help patients identify and manage severe adverse drug reactions.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- Accuracy in patient-reported adverse drug reactions and their recognition: a mixed-methods study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2024Article
- Severity and Management of Adverse Drug Reactions Reported by Patients and Healthcare Professionals: A Cross-Sectional Survey.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Exploring Healthcare Professionals' Practices and Attitudes towards Monitoring and Reporting of Severe Adverse Drug Reactions.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Spontaneous reports of adverse drug reactions related to oral anticoagulants in the Czech Republic.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2021Article
- Community Pharmacists' Views and Experiences with ADR Reporting for Complementary Medicines: A Qualitative Study in New Zealand.Drug safety · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background Patient reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) could supplement the existing reporting system and contribute to early detection of ADRs. The confidence in ADR identification and their attribution of ADRs were limited to outpatients. Objective To determine the type and frequency of ADRs reported by outpatients, to evaluate confidence and accuracy in ADR identification as well as contributing factors. Setting University hospital in northeastern Thailand Method Cross-sectional study using questionnaires distributed to 500 outpatients who claimed to have experienced an ADR. Confidence in identifying ADRs was measured by visual analogue score (VAS), while accuracy of reported ADRs was determined using Naranjo algorithm and WHO criteria. Main outcome measure Number and type of ADRs, confidence rating and accuracy category. Results In total, 390 outpatients completed the questionnaire (response rate = 78.0%). Rash (19.0%), nausea/vomiting (7.4%), and dizziness (5.8%) were the top three reported ADRs. Sixty-one percent of respondents rated their level of confidence in identifying ADRs as high (VAS 9.2 ± 0.95), which was associated with having underlying diseases (OR 1.93), low number of reported symptoms (OR 0.38) and severe ADRs (OR 1.33). Causality assessment was classified as true ADRs in 90.0% and 88.9% of cases, using Naranjo algorithm and WHO criteria, respectively. Respondents with low number of reported symptoms (OR 0.27) and high level of confidence had greater accuracy in ADR identification (OR 1.11). Conclusion The outpatients reported a high proportion of potential ADRs with high confidence and accuracy. Patient reporting of ADRs has potential to support the pharmacovigilance system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30367372What 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.