Observational studyMedicine2020
An investigation into the avoidability of adverse drug reactions using the LAAT and modified Hallas tools.
Observational study in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of severity and avoidability of adverse drug reactions in neonates: a reproducibility study of the Hartwig tool and LAAT.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Observational
- The determination of causality of drug induced liver injury in patients with COVID-19 clinical syndrome.PloS one · 2022Article
- An investigation into the avoidability of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Comment: Drug-Induced Liver Injury (DILI) With Micafungin: The Importance of Causality Assessment.The Annals of pharmacotherapy · 2021Article
- Avoidability of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) in an elderly hospital cohort with cases assessed for causality by the updated RUCAM score.BMC geriatrics · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An adverse drug reactions avoidability tool called the Liverpool ADR avoidability assessment tool (LAAT) was recently developed (for research purposes), and subsequently validated with mixed interrater reliability (IRR). We investigated the comparative IRR of this tool in an inpatient cohort to ascertain its practical application in this setting.The patient population was comprised of 44 ADR drug pairs drawn from an observational prospective cohort of patents with ADR attending a Weill Cornell Medicine-affiliated tertiary medical Centre in Doha Qatar (Hamad General Hospital). Using the LAAT, and modified Hallas tools, 4 independent raters (2 Clinical Pharmacologists, and 2 General Physicians) assessed and scored the 44 ADR-drug pairs. Agreement proportions between the rating pairs were evaluated as well individual/overall kappa statistics and intraclass correlation coefficients. We evaluated the weight of each of the 7 questions on the LAAT tool to ascertain its determinative role.Across 44 ADR-drug pairs, the overall median Fleiss kappa using the LAAT, and modified Hallas tools were 0.67 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.55, 0.76), 0.36 (IQR, 0.23-0.71) respectively. The overall percentage pairwise agreement with the LAAT and modified Hallas tools were 78.5%, and 62.2% respectively. Exact pairwise agreement occurred in 37 out of 44 (range 0.71-1), and 27 of 44 (0.53-0.77) ADR-drug pairs using the LAAT and modified Hallas tools respectively. Using the LAAT tool, the overall intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.68 (CI 0.55, 0.79), and 0.37 (CI 0.22, 0.53) with the modified Hallas tool.We report a higher proportion of "possible" and "definite" avoidability outcomes of adverse drug reactions compared with the modified Hallas, or that reported by developers of the LAAT tool. Although initially developed for research purposes, our report has suggested for the first time a potential applicability of this tool in clinical environment as well.
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.