ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
The application of Global Trigger Tool in monitoring antineoplastic adverse drug events: a retrospective study.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to establish an antineoplastic drugs trigger tool based on Global Trigger Tool (GTT), to examine the performance by detecting adverse drug events (ADEs) in patients with cancer in a Chinese hospital (a retrospective review), and to investigate the factors associating with the occurrence of antineoplastic ADEs. Methods: Based on the triggers recommended by the GTT and those used in domestic and foreign studies and taking into account the scope of biochemical indexes in our hospital, some of them were adjusted. A total of 37 triggers were finally developed. Five hundred medical records of oncology patients discharged in our hospital from 1 June 2020 to 31 May 2021 were randomly selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. These records were reviewed retrospectively by antineoplastic drugs trigger tool. The sensitivity and specificity of the triggers were analyzed, as well as the characteristics and risk factors for the occurrence of ADEs. Results: Thirty-three of the 37 triggers had positive trigger, and the sensitivity rate was 91.8% (459/500). For the specificity, the positive predictive value of overall ADEs was 46.0% (715/1556), the detection rate of ADEs was 63.0% (315/500), the rate of ADEs per 100 admissions was 136.0 (95% CI, 124.1-147.9), and the rate of ADEs per 1,000 patient days was 208.33 (95% CI, 201.2-215.5). The top three antineoplastic drugs related to ADEs were antimetabolic drugs (29.1%), plant sources and derivatives (27.1%), and metal platinum drugs (26.3%). The hematologic system was most frequently involved (507 cases, 74.6%), followed by gastrointestinal system (89 cases, 13.1%). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the number of combined drugs (OR = 1.14; 95% CI, 1.07-1.22; Conclusion: The established trigger tool could be used to monitor antineoplastic drugs adverse events in patients with tumor effectively but still needs to be optimized. This study may provide some references for further research in order to improve the rationality and safety of antineoplastic medications.
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.