ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2024
Comparing patient reported and medical record data of adverse drug reactions to anti-seizure drugs.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAnti-seizure drugs (ASDs) can potentially cause serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Patient self-reporting can increase the rate of ADR detection, but studies examining patient self-reporting of ADRs caused by ASDs are lacking.
aimTo determine the characteristics of ADRs reported by patients receiving ASDs, assess laboratory data and medical record confirmation of patient-reported ADRs, and explore factors associated with laboratory data and medical record confirmation.
methodA self-reporting questionnaire was distributed to patients prescribed ASDs at outpatient clinics. Patients assessed the causality of suspected ADRs using Causality Assessment Tool. Naranjo's algorithm was used by researchers for causality assessment. Medical records were used to gather information on ADR symptoms, ASD medication, and abnormal laboratory data.
resultsFrom 478 distributed questionnaires, 93.1% completed the questionnaire and 67.4% of respondents reported at least one ADR. The most common ADRs were drowsiness (50.7%), dizziness (9.7%), and ataxia (4.3%). For causality, suspected ADRs were classified as possible in 52.3% of cases and probable in 46.3% of cases by patients, and possible in 64.7% of cases and probable in 25.7% of cases by researchers. Only 12.7% of patients had laboratory data and/or medical record confirmation of suspected ADRs. The psychiatry clinic was less likely to confirm suspected ADRs compared to the epilepsy clinic (OR = 0.412, p = 0.022).
conclusionConfirmation of patient-reported ADRs with either laboratory data or medical records was uncommon. Recording patient-reported ADRs in patients' medical history and monitoring laboratory tests related to patient-reported symptoms should be promoted to increase the safety of ASD treatment.
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.