Literature DB >> 19842604

[Confusions and ambiguities in the classification of adverse events in the clinical research].

Gabriela Marodin1, José Roberto Goldim.   

Abstract

It is quite common to consider the terms ambiguous and confusing as synonyms. Confusing information brings together various data with similar meanings. In ambiguous information, on the other hand, several meanings are assigned to a single word. Excessive information also generates ambiguity; therefore, a concise, clear language is demanded. The term adverse event (AE) is defined as any inconvenient medical occurrence suffered by a subject during a clinical investigation research. Confusion and ambiguity in the use of words may generate relevant consequences in the appraisal of AEs. The objective of this present theoretical study is to harmonize the vocabulary applied in the characterization of risks and in the communication of AEs in clinical research processes. AEs may be classified according to their predictability, frequency, gravity, causality, and severity. Regulatory documents usually address AEs in their severity and causality aspects. Vocabulary conformity in the communication of AEs is an essential step towards avoiding inaccurate use of words with confused or ambiguous meanings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19842604     DOI: 10.1590/s0080-62342009000300027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Rev Esc Enferm USP        ISSN: 0080-6234            Impact factor:   1.086


  6 in total

1.  Real-world Performance of Meta-analysis Methods for Double-Zero-Event Studies with Dichotomous Outcomes Using the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

Authors:  Yanan Ren; Lifeng Lin; Qinshu Lian; Hui Zou; Haitao Chu
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2019-03-18       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 2.  Is Stem Cell Commerce in Small Animal Therapies Scientifically and Morally Justified?

Authors:  Luane Lopes Pinheiro; Ana Rita de Lima; Érika Branco
Journal:  Stem Cell Rev Rep       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 5.739

3.  Impact of including or excluding both-armed zero-event studies on using standard meta-analysis methods for rare event outcome: a simulation study.

Authors:  Ji Cheng; Eleanor Pullenayegum; John K Marshall; Alfonso Iorio; Lehana Thabane
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-08-16       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  rTMS for poststroke pusher syndrome: study protocol for a randomised, patient-blinded controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  Lijiao Meng; Raymond C C Tsang; Yanlei Ge; Qifan Guo; Qiang Gao
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-08-10       Impact factor: 3.006

5.  Motives for participating in a clinical research trial: a pilot study in Brazil.

Authors:  Solange A Nappo; Giovanna B Iafrate; Zila M Sanchez
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2013-01-10       Impact factor: 3.295

Review 6.  Clinical Trials Using Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Spinal Cord Injury: Challenges in Generating Evidence.

Authors:  Lila Teixeira de Araújo; Carolina Thé Macêdo; Patrícia Kauanna Fonseca Damasceno; Ítalo Gabriel Costa das Neves; Carla Souza de Lima; Girlaine Café Santos; Thaís Alves de Santana; Gabriela Louise de Almeida Sampaio; Daniela Nascimento Silva; Cristiane Flora Villarreal; Alessandra Casemiro de Campos Chaguri; Crislaine Gomes da Silva; Augusto César de Andrade Mota; Roberto Badaró; Ricardo Ribeiro Dos Santos; Milena Botelho Pereira Soares
Journal:  Cells       Date:  2022-03-17       Impact factor: 6.600

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.