Detail
Článek
Článek online
FT
Medvik - BMČ
  • Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Causality assessment of adverse drug reaction: A narrative review to find the most exhaustive and easy-to-use tool in post-authorization settings

P. Pradhan, M. Lavallee, S. Akinola, FR. Escobar Gimenes, A. Berard, J. Methot, ME. Piche, JM. Gonella, L. Cloutier, J. Leclerc

. 2023 ; 21 (2) : 59-66. [pub] 20230621

Jazyk angličtina Země Česko

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, přehledy, práce podpořená grantem

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc23008972

BACKGROUND: The core motive of pharmacovigilance is the detection and prevention of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), to improve the risk-benefit balance of the drug. However, the causality assessment of ADRs remains a major challenge among clinicians, and none of the available tools of causality assessment used for assessing ADRs have been universally accepted. OBJECTIVE: To provide an up-to-date overview of the different causality assessment tools. METHODS: We conducted electronic searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane database. The eligibility of each tool was screened by three reviewers. Each eligible tool was then scrutinized for its domains (the reported specific set of questions/areas used for calculating the likelihood of cause-and-effect relation of an ADR) to discover the most comprehensive tool. Finally, we subjectively assessed the tool's ease-of-use in a Canadian, Indian, Hungarian, and Brazilian clinical context. RESULTS: Twenty-one eligible causality assessment tools were retrieved. Naranjo's tool and De Boer's tool appeared the most comprehensive among all the tools, covering 10 domains each. Regarding "ease-of-use" in a clinical setting, we judged that many tools were hard to implement in a clinical context because of their complexity and/or lengthiness. Naranjo's tool, Jones's tool, Danan and Benichou's tool, and Hsu and Stoll's tool appeared to be the easiest to implement into various clinical contexts. CONCLUSION: Among the many tools identified, 1981 Naranjo's scale remains the most comprehensive and easy to use for performing causality assessment of ADRs. Upcoming analysis should compare the performance of each ADR tool in clinical settings.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc23008972
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20230802075151.0
007      
ta
008      
230707s2023 xr d f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.32725/jab.2023.010 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)37376882
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xr
100    1_
$a Pradhan, Pallavi $u University of Quebec at Trois-Rivieres, Department of Anatomy, Trois-Rivieres, Canada $u University Institute of Cardiology and Pulmonology of Quebec - Laval University, Centre of Research, Laval, Canada
245    10
$a Causality assessment of adverse drug reaction: A narrative review to find the most exhaustive and easy-to-use tool in post-authorization settings / $c P. Pradhan, M. Lavallee, S. Akinola, FR. Escobar Gimenes, A. Berard, J. Methot, ME. Piche, JM. Gonella, L. Cloutier, J. Leclerc
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: The core motive of pharmacovigilance is the detection and prevention of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), to improve the risk-benefit balance of the drug. However, the causality assessment of ADRs remains a major challenge among clinicians, and none of the available tools of causality assessment used for assessing ADRs have been universally accepted. OBJECTIVE: To provide an up-to-date overview of the different causality assessment tools. METHODS: We conducted electronic searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane database. The eligibility of each tool was screened by three reviewers. Each eligible tool was then scrutinized for its domains (the reported specific set of questions/areas used for calculating the likelihood of cause-and-effect relation of an ADR) to discover the most comprehensive tool. Finally, we subjectively assessed the tool's ease-of-use in a Canadian, Indian, Hungarian, and Brazilian clinical context. RESULTS: Twenty-one eligible causality assessment tools were retrieved. Naranjo's tool and De Boer's tool appeared the most comprehensive among all the tools, covering 10 domains each. Regarding "ease-of-use" in a clinical setting, we judged that many tools were hard to implement in a clinical context because of their complexity and/or lengthiness. Naranjo's tool, Jones's tool, Danan and Benichou's tool, and Hsu and Stoll's tool appeared to be the easiest to implement into various clinical contexts. CONCLUSION: Among the many tools identified, 1981 Naranjo's scale remains the most comprehensive and easy to use for performing causality assessment of ADRs. Upcoming analysis should compare the performance of each ADR tool in clinical settings.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    12
$a farmakovigilance $7 D060735
650    _2
$a hodnocení rizik $7 D018570
650    _2
$a pravděpodobnost $7 D011336
650    12
$a nežádoucí účinky léčiv $x diagnóza $x epidemiologie $x prevence a kontrola $7 D064420
651    _2
$a Kanada $7 D002170
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a přehledy $7 D016454
655    _2
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
700    1_
$a Lavallee, Maude $u University Institute of Cardiology and Pulmonology of Quebec - Laval University, Centre of Research, Laval, Canada $u Laval University, Faculty of Pharmacy, Laval, Canada
700    1_
$a Akinola, Samuel $u University of Pecs, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Nursing, Pecs, Hungary
700    1_
$a Escobar Gimenes, Fernanda Raphael $u University of Sao Paolo, Nursing School of Ribeirao Preto, Sao Paolo, Brazil
700    1_
$a Berard, Anick $u University Hospital Center, Research Center of Sainte-Justine, Montreal, Canada $u University of Montreal, Faculty of Pharmacy, Montreal, Canada
700    1_
$a Methot, Julie $u University Institute of Cardiology and Pulmonology of Quebec - Laval University, Centre of Research, Laval, Canada $u Laval University, Faculty of Pharmacy, Laval, Canada
700    1_
$a Piche, Marie-Eve $u University Institute of Cardiology and Pulmonology of Quebec - Laval University, Centre of Research, Laval, Canada $u Laval University, Faculty of Medicine, Laval, Canada
700    1_
$a Gonella, Jennifer Midiani $u University of Sao Paolo, Nursing School of Ribeirao Preto, Sao Paolo, Brazil
700    1_
$a Cloutier, Lyne $u University of Quebec at Trois-Rivieres, Department of Nursing, Trois-Rivieres, Canada
700    1_
$a Leclerc, Jacinthe $u University Institute of Cardiology and Pulmonology of Quebec - Laval University, Centre of Research, Laval, Canada $u Laval University, Faculty of Pharmacy, Laval, Canada $u University of Quebec at Trois-Rivieres, Department of Nursing, Trois-Rivieres, Canada
773    0_
$w MED00012667 $t Journal of applied biomedicine $x 1214-0287 $g Roč. 21, č. 2 (2023), s. 59-66
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37376882 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b B 2301 $c 1249 $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20230707 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20230802075147 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1964390 $s 1195235
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2023 $b 21 $c 2 $d 59-66 $e 20230621 $i 1214-0287 $m Journal of Applied Biomedicine $n J. Appl. Biomed. (Čes. Budějovice Print) $x MED00012667
LZP    __
$b NLK198 $a Pubmed-20230707

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Pouze přihlášení uživatelé

Možnosti archivace