药物不良反应的因果关系评估:一个叙述性的回顾,以找到最详尽和易于使用的工具,在批准后设置。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Pallavi Pradhan, Maude Lavallee, Samuel Akinola, Fernanda Raphael Escobar Gimenes, Anick Berard, Julie Methot, Marie-Eve Piche, Jennifer Midiani Gonella, Lyne Cloutier, Jacinthe Leclerc
{"title":"药物不良反应的因果关系评估:一个叙述性的回顾,以找到最详尽和易于使用的工具,在批准后设置。","authors":"Pallavi Pradhan,&nbsp;Maude Lavallee,&nbsp;Samuel Akinola,&nbsp;Fernanda Raphael Escobar Gimenes,&nbsp;Anick Berard,&nbsp;Julie Methot,&nbsp;Marie-Eve Piche,&nbsp;Jennifer Midiani Gonella,&nbsp;Lyne Cloutier,&nbsp;Jacinthe Leclerc","doi":"10.32725/jab.2023.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To provide an up-to-date overview of the different causality assessment tools.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":14912,"journal":{"name":"Journal of applied biomedicine","volume":"21 2","pages":"59-66"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Causality assessment of adverse drug reaction: A narrative review to find the most exhaustive and easy-to-use tool in post-authorization settings.\",\"authors\":\"Pallavi Pradhan,&nbsp;Maude Lavallee,&nbsp;Samuel Akinola,&nbsp;Fernanda Raphael Escobar Gimenes,&nbsp;Anick Berard,&nbsp;Julie Methot,&nbsp;Marie-Eve Piche,&nbsp;Jennifer Midiani Gonella,&nbsp;Lyne Cloutier,&nbsp;Jacinthe Leclerc\",\"doi\":\"10.32725/jab.2023.010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To provide an up-to-date overview of the different causality assessment tools.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14912,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of applied biomedicine\",\"volume\":\"21 2\",\"pages\":\"59-66\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of applied biomedicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.32725/jab.2023.010\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of applied biomedicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32725/jab.2023.010","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

背景:药物警戒的核心动机是发现和预防药物不良反应(adr),以改善药物的风险-收益平衡。然而,不良反应的因果关系评估仍然是临床医生面临的主要挑战,目前用于评估不良反应的因果关系评估工具尚未被普遍接受。目的:提供不同因果关系评估工具的最新概述。方法:在MEDLINE、EMBASE和Cochrane数据库中进行电子检索。每个工具的合格性由三位审稿人筛选。然后仔细检查每个符合条件的工具的领域(报告的用于计算ADR因果关系可能性的特定问题/领域),以发现最全面的工具。最后,我们主观地评估了该工具在加拿大、印度、匈牙利和巴西临床环境下的易用性。结果:检索到21种符合条件的因果关系评估工具。Naranjo的工具和De Boer的工具是所有工具中最全面的,分别涵盖了10个领域。关于临床环境中的“易用性”,我们判断许多工具由于其复杂性和/或冗长性而难以在临床环境中实现。Naranjo的工具,Jones的工具,Danan和Benichou的工具,以及Hsu和Stoll的工具似乎是最容易应用于各种临床环境的工具。结论:在确定的许多工具中,1981年纳兰霍量表仍然是进行adr因果关系评估最全面和最容易使用的工具。接下来的分析应该比较每个ADR工具在临床环境中的表现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Causality assessment of adverse drug reaction: A narrative review to find the most exhaustive and easy-to-use tool in post-authorization settings.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of applied biomedicine
Journal of applied biomedicine PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
7.70%
发文量
13
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Applied Biomedicine promotes translation of basic biomedical research into clinical investigation, conversion of clinical evidence into practice in all medical fields, and publication of new ideas for conquering human health problems across disciplines. Providing a unique perspective, this international journal publishes peer-reviewed original papers and reviews offering a sensible transfer of basic research to applied clinical medicine. Journal of Applied Biomedicine covers the latest developments in various fields of biomedicine with special attention to cardiology and cardiovascular diseases, genetics, immunology, environmental health, toxicology, neurology and oncology as well as multidisciplinary studies. The views of experts on current advances in nanotechnology and molecular/cell biology will be also considered for publication as long as they have a direct clinical impact on human health. The journal does not accept basic science research or research without significant clinical implications. Manuscripts with innovative ideas and approaches that bridge different fields and show clear perspectives for clinical applications are considered with top priority.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信