Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35171316›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2022

Adverse drug reaction management in hospital settings: review on practice variations, quality indicators and education focus.

Ar Kar Aung, Steven Walker, Yin Li Khu, Mei Jie Tang, Jennifer I Lee, Linda Velta Graudins

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Pharmacy practice in hospital settings in GCC countries: Pharmacists' medication therapy monitoring activities.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ar Kar AungDepartment of General Medicine, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. A.Aung@alfred.org.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3317-945X
Steven WalkerDepartment of Pharmacy, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Yin Li KhuDepartment of General Medicine, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Mei Jie TangDepartment of General Medicine, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Jennifer I LeeDepartment of Medicine, NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7439-0425
Linda Velta GraudinsDepartment of Pharmacy, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6639-7210
The Alfred Hospital · AUNewYork–Presbyterian Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAdverse drug reactions (ADRs) contribute significantly to healthcare burden. However, they are largely preventable through appropriate management processes. This narrative review aims to identify the quality indicators that should be considered for routine monitoring of processes within hospital ADR management systems. It also examines the potential reasons behind variation in ADR management practices amongst HCPs, and explores possible solutions, focusing on targeted education programmes, to improve both the quality and quantity indicators of ADR management processes.

methodsA comprehensive literature review was conducted to explore relevant themes and topics concerning ADR management, quality indicators and educational interventions.

resultsSubstantial variability exists in ADR management amongst healthcare professionals (HCPs) with regard to reporting rates, characteristics of ADRs reported, quality of assessment, completeness of reports and, most importantly, risk communication practices. These variable practices not only threaten patient safety but also undermine pharmacovigilance processes. To date, quality indicators to monitor ADR management practices within hospital settings remain ill-defined. Furthermore, evidence behind effective interventions, especially in the form of targeted education strategies, to improve the quality of ADR management remains limited.

conclusionsThe focus of ADR management in hospitals should be to promote patient safety through comprehensive assessment, risk communication and safe prescribing. There is a need to develop a system to define, measure and monitor the quality of ADR management. Educational strategies may help improve the quality of ADR management processes.

Indexed as

Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsQuality Indicators, Health CareAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsHospitalsHumansPharmacovigilanceAdverse drug reactionsEducation strategiesManagementPractice variationsQualityReporting

Identifiers

PMID35171316
PMCPMC9005418
OpenAlexW4213247779

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.