ArticleTherapeutic advances in drug safety2021
Validation of a novel causality assessment scale for adverse events in non-small cell lung carcinoma patients treated with platinum and pemetrexed doublet chemotherapy.
Article in Therapeutic advances in drug safety, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Scoping Review of Case-Level Causality Assessment Tools Developed Between 2008 and 2023; Strengths, Weaknesses and Potential Future Improvements.Drug safety · 2026Article
- Assessment of adverse drug reactions encountered in primary care settings.Korean journal of family medicine · 2025Article
- Probable Dapagliflozin-Associated Acute Pancreatitis.Diabetes spectrum : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimAccurate causality assessment (CA) of adverse events (AEs) is important in clinical research and routine clinical practice. The Naranjo scale (NS) used for CA lacks specificity, leading to a high rate of false positive causal associations. NS is a simple scale for CA; however, its limitations have reduced its popularity in favour of other scales. We therefore attempted to improvise the algorithm by addressing specific lacunae in NS.
methodsWe attempted to modify the existing NS by (a) changing the weightage given to certain responses, (b) achieving higher resolution to certain responses for delineating drug related and unrelated AEs and (c) modifying the slabs for classification of association as 'likely' and 'unlikely'. The new scale, named as the Sharma-Nookala-Gota (SNG) algorithm, was evaluated in a training set of 19 AEs in a tertiary care cancer hospital in western India, and further validated in a set of 104 AEs. Consensus of four physician opinion was taken as gold standard for comparison.
resultsOf the 19 AEs in the training set, 6 were described by the treating physician as 'not related' and 13 as related to the drug. The SNG algorithm had 100% concordance with physician opinion, whereas the NS had only 73.7% concordance. NS showed a tendency to misclassify AEs as 'related' when they were indeed 'not related'. In the validation set of 104 AEs, NS and SNG algorithms misclassified 30 and 2 AEs, respectively, leading to a concordance of 70.2% and 98.1%, respectively, with physician opinion.
conclusionDecisive modifications of the NS resulted in the SNG scale, with superior specificity while retaining sensitivity against the gold standard. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY:
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.