Literature DB >> 906995

Comparative study of prospective surveillance and voluntary reporting in determining the incidence of adverse drug reactions.

B S Bennett, A G Lipman.   

Abstract

The results of a hospitalwide voluntary reporting program for adverse drug reactions (ADRs) was compared with the results of a short-term, intensive, prospective surveillance program conducted by a pharmacist on a medical and a surgical patient care unit of a large teaching hospital. Data generated by the voluntary system were collected for a 45-day period; for the prospective surveillance, data were collected for 21 days. Strict definitions on the categories of probability, severity and mechanism of adverse reactions were employed. The incidence of definite and probable ADRs in the voluntary system was 0.08%; for prospective surveillance, the incidence was 7.2% (5.9% of 85 surgical patients and 9.0% of 67 medical patients). The incidence of ADRs in the prospective study, based on patient-drug exposures, was 1.0%. In the prospective study, patients experiencing ADRs received significantly more medications than those not experiencing ADRs. The operation of an ADR monitoring and reporting system for the purpose of maintaining incidence data was not judged to be cost effective. Periodic prospective surveillance programs on representative patient population samples may be valuable in determining true incidence figures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1977        PMID: 906995

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Hosp Pharm        ISSN: 0002-9289


  9 in total

1.  Academic detailing improves identification and reporting of adverse drug events.

Authors:  R G Schlienger; T F Lüscher; R A Schoenenberger; W E Haefeli
Journal:  Pharm World Sci       Date:  1999-06

Review 2.  Detecting adverse events using information technology.

Authors:  David W Bates; R Scott Evans; Harvey Murff; Peter D Stetson; Lisa Pizziferri; George Hripcsak
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2003 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  Computerized surveillance of adverse drug events in hospital patients. 1991.

Authors:  D C Classen; S L Pestotnik; R S Evans; J P Burke
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2005-06

4.  Development of the Leapfrog methodology for evaluating hospital implemented inpatient computerized physician order entry systems.

Authors:  P M Kilbridge; E M Welebob; D C Classen
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2006-04

Review 5.  Detection of medication-related problems in hospital practice: a review.

Authors:  Elizabeth Manias
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 4.335

6.  Relationship between medication event rates and the Leapfrog computerized physician order entry evaluation tool.

Authors:  Alexander A Leung; Carol Keohane; Stuart Lipsitz; Eyal Zimlichman; Mary Amato; Steven R Simon; Michael Coffey; Nathan Kaufman; Bismarck Cadet; Gordon Schiff; Diane L Seger; David W Bates
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2013-04-18       Impact factor: 4.497

7.  Cost evaluation of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients in Taiwan: A prospective, descriptive, observational study.

Authors:  Agnes L F Chan; Haw Yu Lee; Chi-Hou Ho; Thau-Ming Cham; Shun Jin Lin
Journal:  Curr Ther Res Clin Exp       Date:  2008-04

8.  Adverse drug reactions: a hospital pharmacy-based reporting scheme.

Authors:  P A Winstanley; L E Irvin; J C Smith; M L Orme; A M Breckenridge
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1989-07       Impact factor: 4.335

9.  Desire for information about drugs: relationships with patients' characteristics and adverse effects.

Authors:  R Laaksonen; C Duggan; I Bates
Journal:  Pharm World Sci       Date:  2002-10
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.