药物不良反应因果关系分析工具在医院环境中的临床应用范围综述。

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Benjamin Deutscher, Keshia De Guzman, Adam La Caze, Nazanin Falconer
{"title":"药物不良反应因果关系分析工具在医院环境中的临床应用范围综述。","authors":"Benjamin Deutscher, Keshia De Guzman, Adam La Caze, Nazanin Falconer","doi":"10.1080/17512433.2024.2429677","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Identification and monitoring of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and interventions to reduce ADRs are essential for patient safety in hospitals. Causality analysis (CA) is an approach that helps to determine a causal link between medication and patient harm (i.e. an ADR). While numerous CA tools exist, there is no gold standard.</p><p><strong>Areas covered: </strong>Five online databases were searched to identify studies that evaluated the potential clinical utility of CA tools for ADRs. CA tools were mapped against the Bradford Hill (BH) criteria and included if they adhered to the first seven criteria proposed by BH. Upon the database search, 550 studies were identified, with 41 studies being selected that looked at tools mapped to BH. Thirty-four different CA tools were identified in the included studies.</p><p><strong>Expert opinion: </strong>Naranjo and WHO-UMC were the most reported CA tools for studies examining inter-rater and intra-rater reliability. Naranjo commonly received a <i>'fair'</i> agreement level while WHO-UMC received a <i>'substantial'</i> agreement level between raters. Along with kappa statistics, time using the CA tool was also analyzed, with WHO-UMC being the most time-efficient. There does not appear to be one CA tool that can be applied universally to pharmacovigilance efforts in hospital in-patient settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":12207,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology","volume":" ","pages":"1-22"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A scoping review of the clinical utility of adverse drug reaction causality analysis tools for use in the hospital setting.\",\"authors\":\"Benjamin Deutscher, Keshia De Guzman, Adam La Caze, Nazanin Falconer\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17512433.2024.2429677\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Identification and monitoring of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and interventions to reduce ADRs are essential for patient safety in hospitals. Causality analysis (CA) is an approach that helps to determine a causal link between medication and patient harm (i.e. an ADR). While numerous CA tools exist, there is no gold standard.</p><p><strong>Areas covered: </strong>Five online databases were searched to identify studies that evaluated the potential clinical utility of CA tools for ADRs. CA tools were mapped against the Bradford Hill (BH) criteria and included if they adhered to the first seven criteria proposed by BH. Upon the database search, 550 studies were identified, with 41 studies being selected that looked at tools mapped to BH. Thirty-four different CA tools were identified in the included studies.</p><p><strong>Expert opinion: </strong>Naranjo and WHO-UMC were the most reported CA tools for studies examining inter-rater and intra-rater reliability. Naranjo commonly received a <i>'fair'</i> agreement level while WHO-UMC received a <i>'substantial'</i> agreement level between raters. Along with kappa statistics, time using the CA tool was also analyzed, with WHO-UMC being the most time-efficient. There does not appear to be one CA tool that can be applied universally to pharmacovigilance efforts in hospital in-patient settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12207,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-22\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17512433.2024.2429677\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17512433.2024.2429677","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:药物不良反应(ADRs)的识别和监测以及减少 ADRs 的干预措施对医院的患者安全至关重要。因果关系分析(CA)是一种有助于确定药物与患者伤害(即 ADR)之间因果关系的方法。虽然有许多 CA 工具,但并没有黄金标准:对五个在线数据库进行了检索,以确定对 ADR 的 CA 工具的潜在临床效用进行评估的研究。根据布拉德福德-希尔(Bradford Hill,BH)标准对CA工具进行比对,如果符合BH提出的前七条标准,则纳入CA工具。通过数据库搜索,共发现了 550 项研究,其中 41 项研究选择了与 BH 标准相对应的工具。在纳入的研究中发现了 34 种不同的 CA 工具:纳兰霍(Naranjo)和世卫组织医学中心(WHO-UMC)是对评分者之间和评分者内部可靠性研究报告最多的CA工具。Naranjo通常获得 "尚可 "的一致性水平,而WHO-UMC则获得评分者之间 "基本 "的一致性水平。除了卡帕统计,还分析了使用 CA 工具所需的时间;WHO-UMC 最省时。似乎没有一种 CA 工具可以普遍应用于医院住院环境中的药物警戒工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A scoping review of the clinical utility of adverse drug reaction causality analysis tools for use in the hospital setting.

Introduction: Identification and monitoring of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and interventions to reduce ADRs are essential for patient safety in hospitals. Causality analysis (CA) is an approach that helps to determine a causal link between medication and patient harm (i.e. an ADR). While numerous CA tools exist, there is no gold standard.

Areas covered: Five online databases were searched to identify studies that evaluated the potential clinical utility of CA tools for ADRs. CA tools were mapped against the Bradford Hill (BH) criteria and included if they adhered to the first seven criteria proposed by BH. Upon the database search, 550 studies were identified, with 41 studies being selected that looked at tools mapped to BH. Thirty-four different CA tools were identified in the included studies.

Expert opinion: Naranjo and WHO-UMC were the most reported CA tools for studies examining inter-rater and intra-rater reliability. Naranjo commonly received a 'fair' agreement level while WHO-UMC received a 'substantial' agreement level between raters. Along with kappa statistics, time using the CA tool was also analyzed, with WHO-UMC being the most time-efficient. There does not appear to be one CA tool that can be applied universally to pharmacovigilance efforts in hospital in-patient 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
Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology
Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
2.30%
发文量
127
期刊介绍: Advances in drug development technologies are yielding innovative new therapies, from potentially lifesaving medicines to lifestyle products. In recent years, however, the cost of developing new drugs has soared, and concerns over drug resistance and pharmacoeconomics have come to the fore. Adverse reactions experienced at the clinical trial level serve as a constant reminder of the importance of rigorous safety and toxicity testing. Furthermore the advent of pharmacogenomics and ‘individualized’ approaches to therapy will demand a fresh approach to drug evaluation and healthcare delivery. Clinical Pharmacology provides an essential role in integrating the expertise of all of the specialists and players who are active in meeting such challenges in modern biomedical practice.
×
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