Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38915954›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Exploration and Evaluation of Adverse Drug Reactions Documented in a Tertiary-Care Hospital in Chennai: An In-Depth Retrospective Observational Study.

Preetha Selva, Sheela Durairajan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Preetha SelvaDepartment of Pharmacology, Saveetha Medical College and Hospital, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai, IND.
Sheela DurairajanDepartment of Pharmacology, Saveetha Medical College and Hospital, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWhile drugs are intended to benefit patients, adverse drug reactions (ADRs) represent a significant negative outcome of drug consumption. They rank as the sixth leading cause of death among hospitalized patients. Many harmful effects are preventable and can reduce morbidity, mortality, and hospitalization duration. This study is a valuable resource for physicians, aiding in the safe and optimal use of medications. METHODOLOGY: This retrospective observational study, conducted at the Pharmacovigilance Center of Saveetha Medical College and Hospital, Chennai, India, received approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee. All adverse drug interactions reported in our hospital from January 2019 to February 2024 were included after screening for inclusion and exclusion criteria. The collected reactions were analyzed, assessed, and evaluated between February 2024 and April 2024. Data on the drugs causing adverse reactions, the types of reactions, and the treatments administered were collected and documented. The reactions were categorized using the Rawlins and Thompson classification, while causality and severity were assessed using the standard Naranjo causality and modified Hartwig and Siegel severity assessment scales.

resultsDuring the study, 252 ADRs were documented by the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization. The gender distribution showed 123 cases (48.8%) in males and 129 cases (51.2%) in females, with a higher prevalence in the 20-40 age group. The departmentwise distribution revealed the highest number of ADRs in Obstetrics and Gynecology (60 cases, 24%), followed by General Surgery (52 cases, 21%), General Medicine (44 cases, 17%), Pediatrics (22 cases, 9%), and Emergency Medicine (20 cases, 8%). Antimicrobial drugs constituted the majority of ADRs (149 cases, 59.1%), followed by vitamins and mineral supplements (21 cases, 13.8%), contrast dye (15 cases, 6%), antituberculosis drugs (15 cases, 6%), analgesics (13 cases, 5.2%), and gastrointestinal (GIT) drugs (8 cases, 3.2%). Cefotaxime was the most commonly reported antibiotic (42 cases, 28.2%), followed by Ciprofloxacin (41 cases, 27.5%). Among vitamins and mineral supplements, iron sucrose was implicated in the highest number of ADRs (15 cases, 71.4%). The parenteral route of drug administration showed the highest incidence of ADRs (229 cases, 91%), followed by oral (20 cases, 8%) and topical routes (3 cases, 1%). Dermatological manifestations were most frequently reported (196 cases, 77.8%), followed by GIT symptoms (27 cases, 10.7%), and other manifestations such as shivering, fever, seizures, and dyspnea (29 cases, 11.5%). Based on the Naranjo causality assessment scale, 179 ADRs (71%) were categorized as probable, 55 (22%) as possible, 10 (4%) as certain, and 8 (3%) as doubtful. Approximately 47.2% of ADRs were self-limiting, while 44.1% required symptomatic treatment and 8.7% necessitated aggressive treatment, leading to a prolonged hospital stay or admission to the intensive care unit.

conclusionThe pattern of ADRs in our hospital aligns with findings from other studies. While many of these reactions are unpredictable and mild, they underscore the importance of raising awareness among clinicians and regulatory authorities to promote safe medication use and prevent potentially serious outcomes.

Indexed as

adverse drug reactionsantibioticscausality assessment scalepharmacovigilanceseverity assessment scaletype of reactions

Identifiers

PMID38915954
PMCPMC11194127

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.