Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38329561›Full record

ReviewHealth economics review2024

Evaluating the costs of adverse drug events in hospitalized patients: a systematic review.

Maxime Durand, Christel Castelli, Clarisse Roux-Marson, Jean-Marie Kinowski, Géraldine Leguelinel-Blache

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health economics review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Medication Errors in Critical Care.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2025
    Article
  11. AutoPK: Leveraging LLMs and a Hybrid Similarity Metric for Advanced Retrieval of Pharmacokinetic Data from Complex Tables and Documents.International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence : [proceedings]. International Conference on Tools for Artificial Intelligence · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Probing Large Language Model Hidden States for Adverse Drug Reaction Knowledge.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors.

Maxime DurandDepartment of Pharmacy, Nîmes University Hospital, Univ Montpellier, Nîmes, France. maxime_durand@outlook.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-5716-8255
Christel CastelliDepartment of Law and Health Economics, Faculty of Pharmacy, Univ Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
Clarisse Roux-MarsonDepartment of Pharmacy, Nîmes University Hospital, Univ Montpellier, Nîmes, France.
Jean-Marie KinowskiDepartment of Pharmacy, Nîmes University Hospital, Univ Montpellier, Nîmes, France.
Géraldine Leguelinel-BlacheDepartment of Pharmacy, Nîmes University Hospital, Univ Montpellier, Nîmes, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdverse drug events (ADEs) are not only a safety and quality of care issue for patients, but also an economic issue with significant costs. Because they often occur during hospital stays, it is necessary to accurately quantify the costs of ADEs. This review aimed to investigate the methods to calculate these costs, and to characterize their nature.

methodsA systematic literature review was conducted to identify methods used to assess the cost of ADEs on Medline, Web of Science and Google Scholar. Original articles published from 2017 to 2022 in English and French were included. Economic evaluations were included if they concerned inpatients.

resultsFrom 127 studies screened, 20 studies were analyzed. There was a high heterogeneity in nature of costs, methods used, values obtained, and time horizon chosen. A small number of studies considered non-medical (10%), indirect (20%) and opportunity costs (5%). Ten different methods for assessing the cost of ADEs have been reported and nine studies did not explain how they obtained their values.

conclusionsThere is no consensus in the literature on how to assess the costs of ADEs, due to the heterogeneity of contexts and the choice of different economic perspectives. Our study adds a well-deserved overview of the existing literature that can be a solid lead for future studies and method implementation.

trial registrationPROSPERO registration CRD42023413071.

Indexed as

Adverse drug eventsCostsHealth economicsPharmacovigilanceSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38329561
PMCPMC10851489

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.