-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
Methods for identifying adverse drug reactions in primary care: A systematic review
V. Logan, D. Hughes, A. Turner, N. Carter, S. Jordan
Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, systematický přehled
NLK
Directory of Open Access Journals
od 2006
Free Medical Journals
od 2006
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
od 2006
PubMed Central
od 2006
Europe PubMed Central
od 2006
ProQuest Central
od 2006-12-01
Open Access Digital Library
od 2006-01-01
Open Access Digital Library
od 2006-01-01
Open Access Digital Library
od 2006-10-01
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost)
od 2008-01-01
Nursing & Allied Health Database (ProQuest)
od 2006-12-01
Health & Medicine (ProQuest)
od 2006-12-01
Public Health Database (ProQuest)
od 2006-12-01
ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources
od 2006
- MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- nežádoucí účinky léčiv * MeSH
- primární zdravotní péče * MeSH
- randomizované kontrolované studie jako téma MeSH
- systémy pro sběr zpráv o nežádoucích účincích léků MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- systematický přehled MeSH
BACKGROUND: Identification of real-time adverse drug reactions [ADRs] (as opposed to the risk of ADRs) in older poly-medicated people in primary care is a challenging task, often undertaken without an explicit strategy. This systematic review aims to evaluate replicable instruments and methods for identifying and addressing ADRs. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane library, using controlled vocabulary (MeSH) and free-text terms. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) implementing strategies to identify or resolve ADRs experienced by patients in primary care were included. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion. RESULTS: From 2,182 unique records, 49 studies were identified for full review. Eight papers reporting results from 6 RCTs were included. All six trials utilised a list of medicine-related unwanted symptoms to identify ADRs. Two of three studies using adverse drug reaction questionnaires reported statistically significant increased rates of ADR reporting. Two of three studies that combined symptom questionnaires with prescriber consultations reported reductions in the number of health problems. Overall, results suggest that the three studies that described multidisciplinary collaborations using lists of ADRs plus prescriber reviews enhanced patient safety. However, the RCTs were unblinded and reported suboptimal retention. When considered as a whole, findings are equivocal and the data are too heterogenous to warrant any firm conclusions, beyond the need for more research to optimise strategies to safeguard patient wellbeing. IMPLICATIONS: Adaptable and scalable instruments with decision support are needed in primary care to identify and mitigate medicine-related harm in older poly-medicated people. The effectiveness of adverse drug reaction identification instruments, the value of comprehensive instruments, and the optimum method of delivery should be explored in multicentre trials.
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc25009946
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20250429135243.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 250415s2025 xxu f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1371/journal.pone.0317660 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)39903764
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xxu
- 100 1_
- $a Logan, Vera $u Department of Nursing, Faculty of Health and Social Studies, University of South Bohemia, Ceske Budejovice, Czechia $1 https://orcid.org/0000000174370272
- 245 10
- $a Methods for identifying adverse drug reactions in primary care: A systematic review / $c V. Logan, D. Hughes, A. Turner, N. Carter, S. Jordan
- 520 9_
- $a BACKGROUND: Identification of real-time adverse drug reactions [ADRs] (as opposed to the risk of ADRs) in older poly-medicated people in primary care is a challenging task, often undertaken without an explicit strategy. This systematic review aims to evaluate replicable instruments and methods for identifying and addressing ADRs. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane library, using controlled vocabulary (MeSH) and free-text terms. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) implementing strategies to identify or resolve ADRs experienced by patients in primary care were included. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion. RESULTS: From 2,182 unique records, 49 studies were identified for full review. Eight papers reporting results from 6 RCTs were included. All six trials utilised a list of medicine-related unwanted symptoms to identify ADRs. Two of three studies using adverse drug reaction questionnaires reported statistically significant increased rates of ADR reporting. Two of three studies that combined symptom questionnaires with prescriber consultations reported reductions in the number of health problems. Overall, results suggest that the three studies that described multidisciplinary collaborations using lists of ADRs plus prescriber reviews enhanced patient safety. However, the RCTs were unblinded and reported suboptimal retention. When considered as a whole, findings are equivocal and the data are too heterogenous to warrant any firm conclusions, beyond the need for more research to optimise strategies to safeguard patient wellbeing. IMPLICATIONS: Adaptable and scalable instruments with decision support are needed in primary care to identify and mitigate medicine-related harm in older poly-medicated people. The effectiveness of adverse drug reaction identification instruments, the value of comprehensive instruments, and the optimum method of delivery should be explored in multicentre trials.
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 12
- $a primární zdravotní péče $7 D011320
- 650 12
- $a nežádoucí účinky léčiv $7 D064420
- 650 _2
- $a randomizované kontrolované studie jako téma $7 D016032
- 650 _2
- $a systémy pro sběr zpráv o nežádoucích účincích léků $7 D016907
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a systematický přehled $7 D000078182
- 700 1_
- $a Hughes, David $u Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, United Kingdom $1 https://orcid.org/0000000276317763
- 700 1_
- $a Turner, Adam $u Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, United Kingdom $1 https://orcid.org/0000000207217662
- 700 1_
- $a Carter, Neil $u Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, United Kingdom $1 https://orcid.org/0000000313278661
- 700 1_
- $a Jordan, Sue $u Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, United Kingdom $1 https://orcid.org/0000000256912987
- 773 0_
- $w MED00180950 $t PloS one $x 1932-6203 $g Roč. 20, č. 2 (2025), s. e0317660
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39903764 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20250415 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20250429135238 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 2311367 $s 1247027
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC-MEDLINE
- BMC __
- $a 2025 $b 20 $c 2 $d e0317660 $e 20250204 $i 1932-6203 $m PloS one $n PLoS One $x MED00180950
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20250415