药物不良反应评价的挑战

Karine Balero Marante
{"title":"药物不良反应评价的挑战","authors":"Karine Balero Marante","doi":"10.4172/2329-6887.1000260","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Prevention of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is the essence of Pharmacovigilance and its precise diagnosis is crucially a primary step, which still remains a challenge among specialists. The objective here is to investigate and offer a notion of commonly used and the developed methods of causality assessment tools for the diagnosis of ADRs and discuss their pros and cons. There are several recognized ways for assessment methods with decisive factors of causality evaluation, all the information regarding reasons allocating causality, the advantages and limitations of the appraisal methods were extracted and evaluated. Expert judgment is typically based on the decisive factor on which algorithms are based, nevertheless in imprecise manner. The probabilistic methods use the similar principle; however, connect probabilities to each measure. Such approaches are quite skeptical and liable to generate cloudy causation results. The final evaluation is quite intricate due to numerous inherent shortcomings in causality assessment tools. Thus we are still looking for developing a high quality assessment tool (very specific, but at the same time, sensitive enough) which can meticulously establish suitable diagnostic criteria for ADRs with universal acceptance to improvise the fundamental aspect of drug safety.","PeriodicalId":16958,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmacovigilance","volume":"60 1","pages":"1-4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Challenges of Adverse Drug Reaction Evaluation\",\"authors\":\"Karine Balero Marante\",\"doi\":\"10.4172/2329-6887.1000260\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Prevention of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is the essence of Pharmacovigilance and its precise diagnosis is crucially a primary step, which still remains a challenge among specialists. The objective here is to investigate and offer a notion of commonly used and the developed methods of causality assessment tools for the diagnosis of ADRs and discuss their pros and cons. There are several recognized ways for assessment methods with decisive factors of causality evaluation, all the information regarding reasons allocating causality, the advantages and limitations of the appraisal methods were extracted and evaluated. Expert judgment is typically based on the decisive factor on which algorithms are based, nevertheless in imprecise manner. The probabilistic methods use the similar principle; however, connect probabilities to each measure. Such approaches are quite skeptical and liable to generate cloudy causation results. The final evaluation is quite intricate due to numerous inherent shortcomings in causality assessment tools. Thus we are still looking for developing a high quality assessment tool (very specific, but at the same time, sensitive enough) which can meticulously establish suitable diagnostic criteria for ADRs with universal acceptance to improvise the fundamental aspect of drug safety.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16958,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pharmacovigilance\",\"volume\":\"60 1\",\"pages\":\"1-4\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pharmacovigilance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4172/2329-6887.1000260\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmacovigilance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/2329-6887.1000260","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

药物不良反应(adr)的预防是药物警戒的本质,其准确诊断是至关重要的第一步,这仍然是专家们面临的挑战。本文的目的是对adr诊断中常用的和发展的因果关系评价工具的概念进行调查和介绍,并讨论其优缺点。目前公认的几种具有因果关系评价决定性因素的评价方法,提取和评价了因果关系分配原因的所有信息,以及评价方法的优点和局限性。专家的判断通常是基于算法所基于的决定性因素,然而以不精确的方式。概率方法使用类似的原理;然而,将概率与每个度量联系起来。这种方法是相当可疑的,容易产生模糊的因果关系结果。由于因果关系评估工具的许多固有缺陷,最终的评估相当复杂。因此,我们仍在寻求开发一种高质量的评估工具(非常具体,但同时又足够敏感),可以精心建立普遍接受的合适的adr诊断标准,以提高药物安全性的基本方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Challenges of Adverse Drug Reaction Evaluation
Prevention of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is the essence of Pharmacovigilance and its precise diagnosis is crucially a primary step, which still remains a challenge among specialists. The objective here is to investigate and offer a notion of commonly used and the developed methods of causality assessment tools for the diagnosis of ADRs and discuss their pros and cons. There are several recognized ways for assessment methods with decisive factors of causality evaluation, all the information regarding reasons allocating causality, the advantages and limitations of the appraisal methods were extracted and evaluated. Expert judgment is typically based on the decisive factor on which algorithms are based, nevertheless in imprecise manner. The probabilistic methods use the similar principle; however, connect probabilities to each measure. Such approaches are quite skeptical and liable to generate cloudy causation results. The final evaluation is quite intricate due to numerous inherent shortcomings in causality assessment tools. Thus we are still looking for developing a high quality assessment tool (very specific, but at the same time, sensitive enough) which can meticulously establish suitable diagnostic criteria for ADRs with universal acceptance to improvise the fundamental aspect of drug safety.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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