AIMS: To evaluate agreement between five senior experts when assessing seven causality criteria and the probability of drug causation. METHODS: A sample of 31 adverse event-drug pairs was constituted. For each pair, five experts separately assessed (i) the probability of drug causation, which was secondarily divided into seven causality levels: ruled out (0-0.05), unlikely (0.06-0.25), doubtful (0.26-0.45), indeterminate (0.46-0.55), plausible (0.56-0.75), likely (0.76-0.95), and certain (0.96-1); and (ii) seven causality criteria. To test discrepancies between experts, the kappa index was used. RESULTS: The agreement of the five experts was very poor (kappa = 0.05) for the probability of drug causation. Among the seven levels of causality, only 'doubtful' showed a significant rate of agreement (kappa = 0.32, P < 0.001). For all criteria, the kappa index was significant except for the item 'risk(s) factor(s)' (kappa = 0.09). Agreement between experts was good (0.64, P < 0.001) only for the criterion 'reaction at site of application or toxic plasma concentration of the drug or validated test'. However, the rate of agreement with kappa indices of the causality criteria ranged from 0.12 to 0.38. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that in the absence of an operational procedure, agreement between experts is low. This should be considered when designing a causality assessment method. In particular, criteria inducing a low level of agreement should have their weight reduced.
AIMS: To evaluate agreement between five senior experts when assessing seven causality criteria and the probability of drug causation. METHODS: A sample of 31 adverse event-drug pairs was constituted. For each pair, five experts separately assessed (i) the probability of drug causation, which was secondarily divided into seven causality levels: ruled out (0-0.05), unlikely (0.06-0.25), doubtful (0.26-0.45), indeterminate (0.46-0.55), plausible (0.56-0.75), likely (0.76-0.95), and certain (0.96-1); and (ii) seven causality criteria. To test discrepancies between experts, the kappa index was used. RESULTS: The agreement of the five experts was very poor (kappa = 0.05) for the probability of drug causation. Among the seven levels of causality, only 'doubtful' showed a significant rate of agreement (kappa = 0.32, P < 0.001). For all criteria, the kappa index was significant except for the item 'risk(s) factor(s)' (kappa = 0.09). Agreement between experts was good (0.64, P < 0.001) only for the criterion 'reaction at site of application or toxic plasma concentration of the drug or validated test'. However, the rate of agreement with kappa indices of the causality criteria ranged from 0.12 to 0.38. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that in the absence of an operational procedure, agreement between experts is low. This should be considered when designing a causality assessment method. In particular, criteria inducing a low level of agreement should have their weight reduced.
Authors: C A Naranjo; U Busto; E M Sellers; P Sandor; I Ruiz; E A Roberts; E Janecek; C Domecq; D J Greenblatt Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 1981-08 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Don C Rockey; Leonard B Seeff; James Rochon; James Freston; Naga Chalasani; Maurizio Bonacini; Robert J Fontana; Paul H Hayashi Journal: Hepatology Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Shaun M Comfort; Bruce Donzanti; Darren Dorrell; Sunita Dhar; Chris Eden; Francis Donaldson Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2022-10-23 Impact factor: 5.228
Authors: René Rizzoli; Jean-Yves Reginster; Steven Boonen; Gérard Bréart; Adolfo Diez-Perez; Dieter Felsenberg; Jean-Marc Kaufman; John A Kanis; Cyrus Cooper Journal: Calcif Tissue Int Date: 2011-06-03 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Joanna E Klopotowska; Peter C Wierenga; Clementine C M Stuijt; Lambertus Arisz; Marcel G W Dijkgraaf; Paul F M Kuks; Henk Asscheman; Sophia E de Rooij; Loraine Lie-A-Huen; Susanne M Smorenburg Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-08-05 Impact factor: 3.240