ArticleCadernos de saude publica2023
[Update of triggers for detection of adverse drug events in hematologic patients].
Article in Cadernos de saude publica, 2023. 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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of triggers for the active search and detection of adverse drug events (ADEs) has been gaining ground within pharmacovigilance services. Thus, the main objective of the study was to propose a new list of triggers to be used in a center specialized in hematology in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The update of the list of triggers consisted of revising the current list, with the exclusion and inclusion of new triggers. To verify the performance of the new list of triggers, a cross-sectional study was conducted in which the new triggers were used to investigate the occurrence of ADEs in patients attended in the emergency unit or hospitalized from January to March 2022. For each suspected ADEs, the patient's profile and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were characterized regarding causality and severity. The performance of the triggers and their ability to capture ADEs were estimated using the following indicators: frequency of the trigger per 100 medical records, frequency of ADEs per 100 records, and positive predictive value (PPV). To evaluate the overall performance of the proposed new list, the PPV was estimated. A total of 374 prescriptions for triggers were identified in 186 medical records. The most efficient in the detection of possible ADEs were: lidocaine, loperamide, bisacodyl, filgrastim and glycerin clyster. The overall PPV of the new suggested list was 48% versus 10% of the previous list. This study demonstrated the importance of an updated list of triggers for the monitoring of ADEs and improvement of the care provided.
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.