Detail
Článek
Článek online
FT
Medvik - BMČ
  • 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

. 2025 ; 20 (2) : e0317660. [pub] 20250204

Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, systematický přehled

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc25009946

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

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...