ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2025
Evaluation of a self-screening tool and patient alert cards to help patients identify and manage severe adverse drug reactions.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Characteristics, preventability, management, and predictors of adverse drug reaction-related hospital admissions: a cross-sectional study in a Thai tertiary care hospital.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFew studies have examined the use of self-screening tools and patient alert cards (PAC) for screening adverse drug reactions (ADRs).
aimTo evaluate the benefits of self-screening tools and PAC for screening ADRs.
methodA prospective study of outpatients was conducted at a tertiary care teaching hospital. The sample included patients over 18 years of age who were currently taking one of four prescription medicines-methotrexate, sulfasalazine, cyclosporine, or prednisolone. A self-screening tool was distributed to patients in either hard copy or on-line format depending on patient preference. Simple random sampling was used to assign patients to either receive a PAC or not.
resultsA total of 922 self-screening tools were distributed with 709 returned (71.5%). Over half (n = 388) of the respondents reported a total of 3437 symptoms that they credited to their medication. The most commonly reported symptom was angioedema (15.8%). The majority of patients (76.7%) used the temporal relationship between the onset of symptoms and the administration of the drug to decide if their ADR was associated with the drug and this proportion was higher in respondents who selected the online self-screening tool (70.7% and 83.2%, p = 0.040). Half of the patients reported high satisfaction with their PACs.
conclusionProviding patients with a self-screening tool and a PAC supported patients to report more ADRs compared to rates for spontaneous reporting alone. We propose that they should be provided to all patients to increase ADR reporting and to encourage HCPs to provide drug information, thereby improving patient medication safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39832062What 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.