Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33666715›Full record

Observational studyNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2021

Medical students as adverse drug event managers, learning about side effects while improving their reporting in clinical practice.

M Reumerman, J Tichelaar, M C Richir, M A van Agtmael

Open access · hybridAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Improving adverse drug event reporting by healthcare professionals.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

M ReumermanPharmacotherapy Section, Department of Internal Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, location VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081, HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. m.reumerman@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9060-0701
J TichelaarPharmacotherapy Section, Department of Internal Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, location VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081, HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
M C RichirPharmacotherapy Section, Department of Internal Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, location VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081, HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
M A van AgtmaelPharmacotherapy Section, Department of Internal Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, location VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081, HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Managing adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is a challenge, especially because most healthcare professionals are insufficiently trained for this task. Since context-based clinical pharmacovigilance training has proven effective, we assessed the feasibility and effect of a creating a team of Junior-Adverse Drug Event Managers (J-ADEMs). The J-ADEM team consisted of medical students (1st-6th year) tasked with managing and reporting ADRs in hospitalized patients. Feasibility was evaluated using questionnaires. Student competence in reporting ADRs was evaluated using a case-control design and questionnaires before and after J-ADEM program participation. From Augustus 2018 to Augustus 2019, 41 students participated in a J-ADEM team and screened 136 patients and submitted 65 ADRs reports to the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Center Lareb. Almost all patients (n = 61) found it important that "their" ADR was reported, and all (n = 62) patients felt they were taken seriously by the J-ADEM team. Although attending physicians agreed that the ADRs should have been reported, they did not do so themselves mainly because of a "lack of knowledge and attitudes" (50%) and "excuses made by healthcare professionals" (49%). J-ADEM team students were significantly more competent than control students in managing ADRs and correctly applying all steps for diagnosing ADRs (control group 38.5% vs. intervention group 83.3%, p < 0.001). The J-ADEM team is a feasible approach for detecting and managing ADRs in hospital. Patients were satisfied with the care provided, physicians were supported in their ADR reporting obligations, and students acquired relevant basic and clinical pharmacovigilance skills and knowledge, making it a win-win-win intervention.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePharmacovigilanceStudents, MedicalAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsCase-Control StudiesClinical CompetenceDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHumansProspective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesClinical pharmacologyMedical educationPharmacotherapyPharmacovigilanceReporting ADRs

Identifiers

PMID33666715
PMCPMC8233281
OpenAlexW3135541455

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.