ArticleBMC health services research2021
Detection of adverse drug events in e-prescribing and administrative health data: a validation study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prescribing Patterns and Impact of Sedatives in Hospitalized Older Adults: A Secondary Analysis of the MedSafer Study.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2025Trial
- The use of international classification of diseases codes to identify hospital admissions linked with adverse drug events: Validation study.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Article
- Co-Designing a Consumer-Focused Digital Reporting Health Platform to Improve Adverse Medicine Event Reporting: Protocol for a Multimethod Research Project (the ReMedi Project).JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Potential Adverse Drug Events Identified with Decision Support Algorithms from Janusmed Risk Profile-A Retrospective Population-Based Study in a Swedish Region.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Integrating electronic health records with other data sources for postmarket drug safety signal identification: a review.Frontiers in drug safety and regulation · 2024Review
- Sharing Adverse Drug Event Reports Between Hospitals and Community Pharmacists to Inform Re-dispensing: An Analysis of Reports and Process Outcomes.Drug safety · 2023Observational
- A Narrative Review of Adverse Event Detection, Monitoring, and Prevention in Indian Hospitals.Cureus · 2022Review
- Deprescribing Opportunities for Hospitalized Patients With End-Stage Kidney Disease on Hemodialysis: A Secondary Analysis of the MedSafer Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.Canadian journal of kidney health and disease · 2022Article
- Magnitude and Characteristics of Adverse Drug Events in Saudi Arabia: A Systematic Review.Saudi journal of medicine & medical sciencesReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdministrative health data are increasingly used to detect adverse drug events (ADEs). However, the few studies evaluating diagnostic codes for ADE detection demonstrated low sensitivity, likely due to narrow code sets, physician under-recognition of ADEs, and underreporting in administrative data. The objective of this study was to determine if combining an expanded ICD code set in administrative data with e-prescribing data improves ADE detection.
methodsWe conducted a prospective cohort study among patients newly prescribed antidepressant or antihypertensive medication in primary care and followed for 2 months. Gold standard ADEs were defined as patient-reported symptoms adjudicated as medication-related by a clinical expert. Potential ADEs in administrative data were defined as physician, ED, or hospital visits during follow-up for known adverse effects of the study medication, as identified by ICD codes. Potential ADEs in e-prescribing data were defined as study drug discontinuations or dose changes made during follow-up for safety or effectiveness reasons.
resultsOf 688 study participants, 445 (64.7%) were female and mean age was 64.2 (SD 13.9). The study drug for 386 (56.1%) patients was an antihypertensive, and for 302 (43.9%) an antidepressant. Using the gold standard definition, 114 (16.6%) patients experienced an ADE, with 40 (10.4%) among antihypertensive users and 74 (24.5%) among antidepressant users. The sensitivity of the expanded ICD code set was 7.0%, of e-prescribing data 9.7%, and of the two combined 14.0%. Specificities were high (86.0-95.0%). The sensitivity of the combined approach increased to 25.8% when analysis was restricted to the 27% of patients who indicated having reported symptoms to a physician.
conclusionCombining an expanded diagnostic code set with e-prescribing data improves ADE detection. As few patients report symptoms to their physician, higher detection rates may be achieved by collecting patient-reported outcomes via emerging digital technologies such as patient portals and mHealth applications.
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.