Observational studyCurrent drug safety2025
A Retrospective Observational Study of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) Reported to ADR Monitoring Centre from 2010 to 2020.
Observational study in Current drug safety, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdverse Drug Reactions (ADR) are one of the common causes of hospital admissions and pose a significant clinical and economic burden on the healthcare system. The Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring Centre (AMC) in JIPMER functioning under the Pharmacovigilance Programme of India (PvPI) plays a vital role in ensuring medication safety by routinely detecting and monitoring ADRs. Hence, this study aimed to assess the characteristics of ADR reported from 2010 to 2020 in AMC JIPMER and to detect signals, if any.
objectiveTo study the characteristics of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) reported to a regional ADR monitoring center from 2010 to 2020 and to detect signals of disproportionate reporting (SDRs) if any from the reported ADRs. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 6007 ADR reports with a single suspect drug were included for analysis from 2010 to 2020. The characteristics of these reports, including patient's age and gender, Number and percentage of ADRs, the causality of ADR using WHO UMC (World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Centre) scale, the seriousness of the ADR, and outcome were collected from the ADR reports. MedDRA (Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities) Preferred Terms (PT) were used to classify adverse drug reactions. Causality analysis using the Naranjo Algorithm and Preventability using Modified Schumock and Thornton criteria were performed for the ADRs. The number and percentage of severe ADRs were analyzed. The System Organ class of all the ADRs was enumerated. ADRs not mentioned in the US FDA (United States Food and Drug Administration) product label (unlabelled reactions) were documented. Unlabeled reactions with ≥3 ADR reports were included for signal detection by disproportionality analysis.
resultsAntineoplastic drugs, followed by antimicrobials, anticonvulsants, Anti snake venom, and NSAID were the most common drugs implicated in ADRs. Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders were the most common System Organ Class (SOC) involved in the ADRs. Among the 6007 reports, 19.2% were serious ADRs. Most of the ADR reports were of possible causality followed by probable and certain as per WHO UMC and Naranjo causality scales. Only ten ADRs were preventable and one reaction (Tamoxifen-induced neuropathy) was eligible for signal detection. Disproportionality analysis using a 2x2 contingency table showed insignificant signal detection using the Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR) and Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR).
conclusionAnalysis of ADRs from an ADR Monitoring center functioning in a tertiary care hospital shows antineoplastic drugs to be the most common drugs associated with adverse drug reactions, with rash being the most common adverse effect. The majority of the ADRs were not preventable. No Signals of Disproportionate Reporting (SDR) were detected in our study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39440781What 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.