ArticleSaudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society2018
Trigger tools are as effective as non-targeted chart review for adverse drug event detection in intensive care units.
Article in Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society, 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrating clinical decision support systems, nursing vigilance, and physician prescribing patterns to reduce preventable adverse drug events: a structured evidence-based narrative review on human-AI interface in medication safety.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Application of global trigger tool to determine the prevalence of adverse drug reactions in adult patients admitted to general and COVID-19 intensive care units.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Finding Potential Adverse Events in the Unstructured Text of Electronic Health Care Records: Development of the Shakespeare Method.JMIRx med · 2021Article
- Challenges to the consolidation of pharmacovigilance practices in Brazil: limitations of the hospital pharmacist.Therapeutic advances in 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the use of trigger tools and non-targeted chart review as methods for the detection of adverse drug events in an intensive care unit considering the health system of a developing country.
methodsPatients were divided in groups that were submitted to different methods (trigger tool and non-targeted chart review) for adverse drug event detection. Medical records were retrospectively reviewed, and adverse drug events detected during the data collection were analyzed by a multidisciplinary team and classified according to their causality, predictability, severity and damage level.
resultsThe search for adverse events performed by trigger tools and non-targeted chart review allowed the identification of similar numbers of events (61.09 and 64.04 ADE/1000 patient-days, respectively), types of event and related drugs. In both groups, the most frequently detected adverse events were related to metabolic, gastrointestinal, cardiovascular and hematological systems. These organic systems matched the drugs most associated with adverse event occurrence: anti-infectives, antithrombotics and insulins. Events identified by non-targeted chart review presented higher causality relationships and were considered less severe than those observed by trigger tool use (
conclusionThe similar performance between these methods supports trigger tool applicability in the ICU routine, as this methodology requires less time to retrieve information from the medical records.
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.