ArticleScientific reports2021
Detection of unknown ototoxic adverse drug reactions: an electronic healthcare record-based longitudinal nationwide cohort analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Detection of novel drug-adverse drug reaction signals in rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis: analysis of Korean real-world biologics registry data.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Ototoxicity: a high risk to auditory function that needs to be monitored in drug development.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2024Review
- Effect of Chronic Rhinosinusitis on the Risk of Development of Rheumatoid Arthritis.Allergy, asthma & immunology research · 2023Article
- Could Mid- to Late-Onset Glaucoma Be Associated with an Increased Risk of Incident Dementia? A Nationwide Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Risk of Burning Mouth Syndrome in Patients with Migraine: A Nationwide Cohort Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ototoxic medications can lead to significant morbidity. Thus, pre-marketing clinical trials have assessed new drugs that have ototoxic potential. Nevertheless, several ototoxic side effects of drugs may remain undetected. Hence, we sought to retrospectively investigate the potential risk of ototoxic adverse drug reactions among commonly used drugs via a longitudinal cohort study. An electronic health records-based data analysis with a propensity-matched comparator group was carried out. This study was conducted using the MetaNurse algorithm for standard nursing statements on electronic healthcare records and the National Sample Cohort obtained from the South Korea National Health Insurance Service. Five target drugs capable of causing ototoxic adverse drug reactions were identified using MetaNurse; two drugs were excluded after database-based analysis because of the absence of bilateral hearing loss events in patients. Survival analysis, log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to calculate the incidence, survival rate, and hazard ratio of bilateral hearing loss among patients who were prescribed candidate ototoxic drugs. The adjusted hazard ratio of bilateral hearing loss was 1.31 (1.03-1.68), 2.20 (1.05-4.60), and 2.26 (1.18-4.33) in cimetidine, hydroxyzine, and sucralfate users, respectively. Our results indicated that hydroxyzine and sucralfate may cause ototoxic adverse drug reactions in patients. Thus, clinicians should consider avoiding co-administration of these drugs with other well-confirmed ototoxic drugs should be emphasized.
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.