ReviewSaudi journal of medicine & medical sciences
Magnitude and Characteristics of Adverse Drug Events in Saudi Arabia: A Systematic Review.
Review in Saudi journal of medicine & medical sciences. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: We aimed to determine the prevalence, nature, and identification methods of the adverse drug events (ADEs) as well as explore if standard definitions were utilized while assessing ADEs in Saudi Arabia. Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE via PubMed and Embase from their inceptions to April 2022. We investigated experimental and observational studies conducted in Saudi Arabia. Results: We screened 14,398 records and included 12 studies. This review indicated that the incidence of ADEs ranged from 0.58% to 74.2%, while three cross-sectional study reports highlighted that the proportion of subjects experiencing ADEs ranged from 28% to 98.5%. This wide variation can be attributed to factors such as diverse study designs, measurement variability, and heterogeneous populations. ADR was the most frequently reported type of ADE in all studies. Chart review (58%) was the commonly utilized ADE detection method, followed by patient interviews (25%), and trigger tools (17%). Five studies (42%) used their own ADE definition, and only one study (8%) reported the standard ADE definition; however, half of the studies ( Conclusions: This systematic review suggests that ADE prevalence varied between studies, with chart review being the most used approach for ADE identification in Saudi Arabia, followed by patient interviews. ADR was the most common type of ADE among all studies. Further, most studies did not use the standard ADE definitions. To improve medication safety and patient care outcomes, our review highlights the crucial need for standardized ADE detection and reporting practices in Saudi Arabia. Future research should prioritize prospective studies with standardized methodologies to accurately assess ADE prevalence rates and evaluate the impact of interventions on reducing ADEs in Saudi Arabia.
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.