Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33306728›Full record

Observational studyPloS one2020

Development and validation of a clinical instrument to predict risk of an adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients.

Sara Iasmin Vieira Cunha Lima, Rand Randall Martins, Valdjane Saldanha, Vivian Nogueira Silbiger, Isabelle Cristina Clemente Dos Santos, Ivonete Batista de Araújo, Antonio Gouveia Oliveira

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sara Iasmin Vieira Cunha LimaGraduate Program in Pharmaceutical Sciences, Health Sciences Center, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-4127-7909
Rand Randall MartinsPharmacy Department, Health Sciences Center, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil.
Valdjane SaldanhaGraduate Program in Pharmaceutical Sciences, Health Sciences Center, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil.
Vivian Nogueira SilbigerDepartment of Clinical and Toxicological Analysis, Health Sciences Center, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil.
Isabelle Cristina Clemente Dos SantosGraduate Program in Pharmaceutical Sciences, Health Sciences Center, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil.
Ivonete Batista de AraújoPharmacy Department, Health Sciences Center, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil.
Antonio Gouveia OliveiraGraduate Program in Pharmaceutical Sciences, Health Sciences Center, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil.
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDevelopment and internal validation of a clinical tool for assessment of the risk of adverse drug reactions (ADR) in hospitalized patients. METHODOLOGY: Nested case-control study in an open cohort of all patients admitted to a general hospital. Cases of ADR were matched to two controls. Eighty four patient variables collected at the time of the ADR were analyzed by conditional logistic regression. Multivariate logistic regression with clustering of cases in a random sample of 2/3 of the cases and respective controls, with baseline odds-ratio corrected with an estimate of ADR incidence, was used to obtain regression coefficients for each risk factor and to develop a risk score. The clinical tool was validated in the remaining 1/3 observations. The study was approved by the institution's research ethics committee.

resultsIn the 8060 hospitalized patients, ADR occurred in 343 (5.31%), who were matched to 686 controls. Fourteen variables were identified as independent risk factors of ADR: female, past history of ADR, heart rate ≥72 bpm, systolic blood pressure≥148 mmHg, diastolic blood pressure <79 mmHg, diabetes mellitus, serum urea ≥ 67 mg/dL, serum sodium ≥141 mmol/L, serum potassium ≥4.9 mmol/L, main diagnosis of neoplasia, prescription of ≥3 ATC class B drugs, prescription of ATC class R drugs, prescription of intravenous drugs and ≥ 6 oral drugs. In the validation sample, the ADR risk tool based on those variables showed sensitivity 61%, specificity 73% and area under the ROC curve 0.73.

conclusionWe report a clinical tool for ADR risk stratification in patients hospitalized in general wards based on 14 variables.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCase-Control StudiesCohort StudiesDrug PrescriptionsDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsFemaleHospitalizationHumansIncidenceLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedOdds RatioPatients' RoomsPrescription DrugsPrescription Drugs

Identifiers

PMID33306728
PMCPMC7732084
OpenAlexW3111239233

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.